Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 1

edit

re: this text:

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 Wikipedia. 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:

"[Khufu] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, than it would certainly be allowed in that article, per the rules of Wikipedia. -- 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 statue, 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 attempted it when I made the initial insertion, but it read pretty badly, so I thought better of it. Too lazy, I guess. 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)

The scholarly descriptions of the Sphinx as "Negroid" are accurate and valid. The Volney quote by its self means nothing, it's just one non-specialists non-scientific views from 200 years ago, the Sphinx hasn't changed since then, it's of zero significance other then in the context of the Afrocentric debate. The quote has no scientific bearing. In fact without the Afrocentric context, on its own the quote is misleading. The other quote by Robert M. Schoch doesn't belong in the mainstream egyptology section of the article. Schoch is not an egyptologist and his views are generally not accepted as mainstream, he believes in a "lost civilization" and some other out-there ideas. If you want to include his quote in the Afrocentric section that's fine. It is plainly obvious your intent is to promote as fact the Afrocentric views that ancient Egyptians were black, rest assured that any such attempt will find its self wrapped securely in the context of Afrocentricism. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your response is ridiculous. The typical response of Eurocentrists to any mention of blackness in dynastic Egypt is met with cries of "Afrocentrism." There are numerous descriptions/characterizations of the Sphinx as "Negroid." No one can reasonably deny it. Here is another description, this one by Flaubert:

We stop before a Sphinx ; it fixes us with a terrifying stare. Its eyes still seem full of life; the left side is stained white by bird-droppings (the tip of the Pyramid of Khephren has the same long white stains); it exactly faces the rising sun, its head is grey, ears very large and protruding like a negro’s, its neck is eroded; from the front it is seen in its entirety thanks to great hollow dug in the sand; the fact that the nose is missing increases the flat, negroid effect. Besides, it was certainly Ethiopian; the lips are thick....

What makes the head of the Sphinx strikingly Africoid is the pronounced prognathism; the person portrayed could be a classic Dinka. The prognathism is clearly photographed in the photos featured in the photo gallery (taken by a white man, incidentally) that repeatedly has been deleted from this article completely without justification. (I note also, and with no small degree of amusement, that two photos in the second photo gallery, which was inserted repeatedly in place of the first, are virtually identical to two in the first gallery -- and show very clearly the prominent prognathism of the obviously Africoid head. One photo is, in fact, so nearly identical to another, that I had to compare the photos from both galleries side by side and search the shadowing in order to confirm they were taken by different photographers.)

I find it amusing that even Eurocentrists readily will admit that dynastic Egypt was black in its beginnings, but some become positively apoplectic when a monument of a black man dated, at the latest, to the Old Kingdom (and possibly earlier) is accurately described as "Negroid." Why is that -- when any respected scholar these days understands that dynastic Egypt certainly at least in its beginnings was, indeed, black African? And, hell. Not even Afrocentric scholars contend that dynastic Egypt was an all-black civilization all the time. But assuming the perfectly logical and evident presence of black people in an African nation, what's the big deal about describing a single monument/structure accurately as that of a black man? Somebody please 'splain dat 2 me. deeceevoice 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil, deeceevoice. Implying that other editors are "eurocentrists" and calling them "apoplectic" is not acceptable. Uncited judgements of prognathisms are inappropriate original research. Justforasecond 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. There's nothing incivil about my comments. What? They can call my perfectly reasonable additions Afrocentric, but I can't refer to a Eurocentric mind-set? Please. I've made no mention of prognathism in my edits in this particular matter. Further, "uncited judgements [sic]" and "inappropriate original research"? The prognathism of the Sphinx isn't a judgment call any more than seeing a circular object and calling it round is a judgment call. Prognathism is what it is, and it is what makes those who see it identify the Sphinx as clearly Negroid. Flaubert says as much, specifically describing the head as "protruding like a negro's." Further, I have worked to reach consensus in this regard and have made the necessary edits, when all the others have done is revert, revert and revert. You might do well to turn your critical eye in the opposite direction. deeceevoice 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any other editors calling you "apopletic". Others may mention Afrocentrism, but that is probably because of your insistence on inserting links to websites to known afrocentrist sites such as "returntoglory", containing skewed photos. Your discussion of matters on the talk page appreciated, but the reality is you've actually reverted at least as much as any other editors. Keep in mind that a revert war requires at least two editors. You are right that all editors need to remain civil. Justforasecond 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And who says the photos on this page are skewed? There's absolutely no basis to reject the photos included in the Sphinx photo gallery -- none.

And, "Others may mention Afrocentrism"? That's funny. Of course they do -- and they do it dismissivly, as though it's some kind of indictment, when the fact is I know of no credible Egytologist today who denies that the Sphinx is clearly Negroid in appearance, or that Egypt was, indeed, a black civilization at the presumed time of its construction. Further, it was I who grew tired of the constant reverting, even after remonstrating with the other editors on this talk page and receiving no response, and started to make accommodations in the text. Check the edit history. Clearly, a reality check is in order here. I'm done discussing this matter with you. Deeceevoice 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Black African theory

The issue is more simple, it is that some people see negroid features in the Sphinx. The implications of that are irrelevant to this article. However, not everyone sees negroid features in the face, it is a minority view. To that end Ive made some changes:

1. Removed the reference to "forensic studies" because they were not forensic studies. Unless there is a forensic report that can be shown, the phrase "forensic study" is original research.

• I have no problem with this change; I didn't write the verbiage. deeceevoice 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Removed the side profile picture that showed an elongated face, it is a manipulated image. Anyone who has seen the Sphinx in person knows it. The image source is not reliable per the reliable sources guideline.

• This image is virtually duplicated in the second photo gallery (discussed above), and are other images elsewhere, in 19th-century artists' renderings and contemorary photographs, which show the marked prognathism of the Sphinx. The image is restored. deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is there an image from a neutral source? That would remove reliable source issues. There are thousands of images of the Sphinx on the web from libraries, why pick one from a POV controversial website? The 19th C drawings were artistic embellishments based on prevailing racial and historical ideas of the time, when history was written on "pure race" lines and anyone who was from Africa was a "black African" - we know those drawings to be inaccurate because the Sphinx has not changed since then (other than restoration work). -- Stbalbach 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "returntoglory" (as if the name wasn't enough to hint at what you'd find...) photo appears to be stretched and the same website has been the source of other distorted photos that deeceevoice has inserted. Google for "sphinx profile" and many images come back. The ones I've looked at appear far less elongated. Here's one: [1]

Justforasecond 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your above comments in detail, but I'm laughing out loud at this photo. I love it. It's virtually identical to that on the RTG website. Both show a prognathism which juts at about a 60 angle. Classic Africoid. (In the classic Caucasoid phenotype, as well as in virtually all Caucasians, actually, there is a virtual plumb line from the skeletal upper lip area/root of nose to the base of the lower lip/the chin. In the Caucasoid phenotype, the plumb line actually extends from the bridge of the nose, through the root of the nose/upper lip, through to the chin line.[2]. Note the "retreating zygomatics" line A and extend it upward to the bridge of the nose.) So, oh, do link to it, please. The image has both a maxillary and an alveolar prognathism, both highly pronounced, and is clearly -- clearly of a blackman. Just take a look at jutting profile. :p (See also photos of the classically Dinka face of Sudanese super model Alek Wek.)[3],[4] Same face, broad across the nasal area -- note the curve of the cheekbones -- same 60-degree prognathism. The only reason I used the image link from RTG in the text is because it's a close-up of the Sphinx profile that can be isolated, that the reader doesn't have to hunt for on a page with other images. If you want to change the link to to this one, hey, go for it. :) Done. I've already incorporated the link into the text. Gee, thanks, Justforasecond. I never thought I'd say this, but I guess you're good for something after all. :) deeceevoice 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Removed the "expressed astonishment" .. POV.

• The POV crept in because de Volney's reaction was characterized in such a manner in the source materials. Frankly, I don't doubt de Volney was astonished -- and a longer excerpt might have provided such evidence. But such text, if it exists, was not made available. So, that's cool. I have no problem with your change. deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Moved to a new header "Black African theory" since not everyone believes it to be the case it is a minority view, along with the other minority view theories.

• Who says it's the minority view? Show me reputable sources (not Stormfront websites) that say the Sphinx face isn't Negroid and photos that show otherwise. I've restored this info to its original place, more or less, and tweaked changed the subhead somewhat to accommodate it deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  The proof is on you to show whose view it is. The only evidence provided is a controversial American geologist and a 200-year old French explorer and "scholar", both of him were under the same out-dated polemic racial influences mentioned above. Neither are mainstream egyptology, they are minority views. -- Stbalbach 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely! And I have done so, attributing the observations presented therein and also providing links to applicable sources. You (or whoever wrote the language) characterized the "Negroid" nature of the Sphinx as a "minority view" -- without any source or reference, without any supporting documentation whatsoever. You would do well to heed your own advice. Deeceevoice 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No really it is you who has proved it's a minority view, all your sources are minority view sources. Majority view would represent mainstream egyptology in 2006. If your going to make these claims as being majority view than you need to back it up with majority view sources. -- Stbalbach 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the Negroid view is, as far as I know, the majority view. After all, a facial projection 30 degrees from vertical is pretty hard to overlook. :p I've provided quotes and citations. And there are others, but those are the ones I've provided, because they are convenient. Where are your authoritative, "majority" views to the contrary? :p Deeceevoice 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Removed characterization of Robert M. Schoch as a "notable sphinx scholar" - notable how? he is in fact a American geologist with no formal egyptology training and his work with the sphinx is highly controversial and even characterized as pseudo-science. He is notable for those reasons.--Stbalbach 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine. I found the guy on a couple of websites and references to some of his fairly pedestrian scholarship regarding the Sphinx and noted his affiliation with Boston University. deeceevoice 00:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The race speculations

The article HAS in fact been turned into an Afrocentric propaganda tract! The information about the "Negroid nature" of the Sphinx is now integrated into the text very casually as if it's part of commonly accepted scholarship! The piece by Schoch from which the quote in the article is taken was published in 'Fortean Times', which according to its site "is a monthly magazine of news, reviews and research on strange phenomena and experiences, curiosities, prodigies and portents." [5] Not exactly a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Another quote is taken from a site dedicated entirely to the idea of a "Black" Egypt. Not exactly NPOV.

And the pictures of the Sphinx from the site by the guy who describes himself as a "workshop facilitator", "mentor to pro athletes", and "Corporate trainer," among other interesting things, most certainly HAVE been reworked to make the face look wider. The bottom five close-ups of the Sphinx's face at the Guardian's site are taken from different angles, and they are obviously not skewed toward any particular look. Judging by the photographs, it could reasonably be interpreted as any and each guess is as good as the other. Here's a shot of Schoch in front of the Sphinx [6]. Here's an older picture

And what on Earth is this remark about: "This is based on direct observation of the Sphinx's facial features"? What "facial features" if half of them have been erased?? It's also said in such a way as to make these travelogue trivia anything special; as if the Sphinx hasn't been "directly" observed by countless others!! Besides, this is entirely in the eye of the beholder—it is a personal judgment based on a modern Western "observation". Much like the whole obscene "debate" over the race of the Egyptians!

I am reverting the page back to where the question of the Sphinx's "race" belongs to the Alternative Theories section — Zerida 06:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I visited the Guardian Sphinx photos. In the absolute side/profile shot of the Sphinx (full-body shot) on the left side of the page, the face is blurred, because the photo is taken from a distance. I copied and pasted the image and enlarged it. I invite you to do the same. I laughed aloud. You will see a blurred image -- yes -- but one that is undeniably Africoid. Check it out. Also, immediately under the "YOU DECIDE..." text in red, there is a profile shot that is clearly Africoid (again, the pronounced prognathism), and then underneath that there is a group of photos side by side. Of the top two, the one on the right is the closest to a profile shot, and it, again, clearly shows the prognathism -- as do several others, not so much by the angle from which the photos are taken (because there aren't many profile shots), but the shadowing clearly indicates a protruding face. I chose the link to the RTG photo gallery because it contains several close-ups of the Sphinx's head from different angles and several profile shots taken, presumably, with the express intent of accurately demonstrating the obvious and undeniable prognathism or "protruding" face (à la Flaubert's observation). They are most illustrative of the point made because they emphasize the head. Deeceevoice 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sphinx's pronounced maxillary and alveolar prognathisms haven't been erased. Enough remains of the outlines of the lips to ascertain that they were full, and the face remains broad across the nasal area -- all tell-tale signs even forensic experts look for when determining racial/ethnic identity. What? You think all of the observations over the ages by all sorts of people about the Sphinx's "Negroid" appearance are hallucinations/fabrications? Hardly! Deeceevoice 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that people have been accustomed to Europeanized images of the Sphinx over the years and to a whitewashed approach to Egyptian history. Images of Europeanized sphinxes and the bombardment with fake Egyptian images have been ubiquitous, resuming in earnest with the Egyptomania of the 1920s, after the unearthing of Tut's tomb. And it hasn't stopped. Seen the sphinx at the Luxor hotel & casino in Vegas? The whitewashed French reconstruction of Tut with nearly white skin and hazel eyes? Remember white comedian Steve Martin's song about King Tut, his "favorite honky"? People are so accustomed to this pop culture crap/pap, that when confronted with the real deal, they scream "Afrocentrism." It's the difference between McDonald's and a real restaurant: feed versus food. Tragic that, given a choice, people prefer junk food to food for thought. Deeceevoice 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL I was watching History International a few weeks ago, there was a program called The great black Pharohs of Egypt. I was skipping channels alot, however I did catch apart that said that some white scientist introduced a racially biast view on Egypt that protrayed them as white. I personally think it's purposterous for a white person to claim anything South of Italy. The Egyptians clearly were not white, just by looking at the Sphinx one can see this. I was also watching KU KLUX KLAN a secret history. Well when they got through about 100 years of terror unleashed upon blacks they came to the Civil Rights era. The Narrator stated that the Ku Klux Klan hated Martin Luther King unconditionally. In one photo to poke fun at black features it showed Martin Luther King with huge lips and a large nose. Basically the same features one would find on the Spinx.

74.128.200.135 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

racial identity

Some observers have characterized the Sphinx as "Negroid". Geologist and Boston University professor Robert M. Schoch observed that "…the face of the Sphinx apparently does not pertain to the same race as the face seen on statues of Khafre (the Sphinx has a distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian,' or 'Negroid' aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.)" [5] Schoch notes the "Negroid" features of the Sphinx, but at the same time assumes that Khafre is of a different, unspecified race. However, William Petrie (1853-1942) identified Khafre as an Oromo, who are black African peoples.[6]

There are several problems with this

• The context of Shoch's statement is ignored completely. This half-sentence is barely even relevant to the essay it comes form, which is Shoch recounting the controversy he claims to have caused with redating the Sphinx. Shoch was not concerned with the racial identity of the Sphinx -- he is trying to establish the Sphinx is not Khafre.

Whether the focus of the Schoch is primarily related to the dating of the Sphinx rather than its ethnic identity is not irrelevant. The point is this specific section is, and the Schoch passage in which he writes that it has a "Negroid aspect" is directly relevant. All that garbage about Khafre isn't particularly relevant, and I didn't introduce it; someone else did. I edited it out, and it was reinserted. So, rather than get into an edit war about it, I addressed the misinformation its addition introduced into the article -- that Khafre and the man portrayed by the Sphinx were somehow of different "races." The fact is, they are both black. Khafre is Oromo (Cushitic), and the Sphinx likely Dinka (Nilotic). I'm glad the entire passage about Schoch's silly theory about Khafre and the related Petrie stuff is gone. I agree. Utterly irrelevant. Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The statement from Petrie has little value. The point of the paragraph is to say 'The Sphinx has "negroid" characteristics, unlike Khafre' Adding Pietre's speculative information about Khafre adds nothing to the Sphinx characterization. It belongs in the Khafre article, if anywhere.

Complete agreement (see above). Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "however...oromo...black African" presumes that Shoch equates "negroid" with "black African", but these terms are not equivalent. I haven't seen "black African" used much other than by deeceevoice, but she uses it mostly as sort of an all-encompassing term for anyone with dark skin from Africa, regardless of features of typical "negroid" features.

Uh, well, yeah. LOL Indigenous Africans with dark skin are black people. And that includes Ethiopians, Kenyans, Sudanese, Egyptians, etc. Particularly if you've got: enlarged incisors, alveolar and/or mandibular prognathism, rounded eye sockets, a dolichocephalic head. Hair texture and nasal indices vary among Nilotic blacks; but no one in their right mind would argue that the Cushites, Nilotics (like the Oromo, like the Ethiopians, like the Sudanese, like the Dinka -- who are throughout North Africa) aren't black peoples, aren't "Negroes." They certainly aren't Mongoloids, and they damn sure aren't Caucasians. Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shoch did not make this statement from any of his research, he is quoting a police "forensic expert" Frank Domingo. He later says the point, whether correct or not, is irrelevant to his conclusions

"This statement" is what? I don't know what you're referring to, but it's a moot point. The salient fact is he made a statement, or clearly agrees with the statement, that it has a "Negroid aspect."

• According to Shoch, the Sphinx was refurbished on multiple occassions, and that determining who the face resembles does not prove who constructed the Sphinx.

The issue in this section isn't who constructed the Sphinx; it is who the Sphinx depicts. And it obviously depicts a black man. Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whoever inserted this information has completely ignored the meat of Shoch's work on the Sphinx. The reference to a prehistoric date for Sphinx construction, which is his primary concern is mentioned only ever so breifly. This seems, at the least, disingenuous. It reminds me of deeceevoice's inserting a distorted image link, and her previous insertion of a distorted image of king tut's golden mask.

The image link was not distorted and is virtually identical in every respect to the one I happily substituted from another website -- chosen by another editor. I didn't write any of the text related to dating. Get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers. :p Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shoch is described in terms that make him sound scholarly. The sphinx essay seems good enough, but the other quackery he's put online makes him a questionable source. Notice how a certain editor thinks he Shoch should only be described in terms that imply credibility.

No. That "certain editor" thinks Schoch's affiliation with a mainstream university should be duly noted and that whatever Schoch believes about erosion theory, or Khafre being of another "race," or Bush's foreign policy agenda, or the possibility of life on Mars, Brangelina, or the price of rice is simply needless clutter. Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

haha. we had a run of agreement going for a while there. the man writes about aliens, crop circles and lost civilizations....well anyway, since it wasn't schoch who decided the sphinx was "negroid" (it was apparently NY forensics expert frank domingo) and since this isn't really what he was working on, maybe we could remove his name altogether and just refer to the primary source. Justforasecond 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I saw the man's name in connection with the Sphinx only and his BU connection. But the Africoid characteristics of the Sphinx confirmed by a forensics expert? (Not some "Afrocentrist" black person with an agenda?) I won't gloat, but I told you so. :p Again, if you want to see what the Spinx looked like with its nose, take a look at Alek Wek: classic Dinka. And, yep. I'm for using the original source. After all, forensics is a science and, from what others say, Schoch is, uh ... "outside". Deeceevoice 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Shoch's essay about the spinx(not the essay about the essay) is here: [7]

-Justforasecond 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes in this section, excising all reference to Schoch -- including his silly speculation that Khafre is of a different "race" than the subject portrayed in the Sphinx. I dug up some info on Domingo, as well as a Harvard professor and orthodontist to corroborate Domingo's findings. Deeceevoice 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

material about khafre

This theory is based on the circumstantial evidence that Khafre's pyramid is behind the Sphinx when approched from modern Cairo. Further, the political center of ancient Egypt was Memphis, south of the Giza plateau, and so when approching from Memphis, the Sphinx is seen in profile in front of the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

This seems as an attempt to prove that the sphinx is Khufu, not Khafre, but by wiki policies this needs to be researched by someone else and preferably cited. Even if the part about the profile is true, it is irrelevant unless some reliable source has used it as proof that the sphinx is a rendering of Khufu. And of course, even if this exists, it should be used in a balanced fashion. A quick google search seems to indicate the predominant view is that the Sphinx is Khafre or his older brother.

As ethnicity seems to be a recurring issue here, I wouldn't be completely surprised if the Khufu claim is being used because he has been described as more "negroid" (than his own sons!)

Justforasecond 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Afrocentrists around every corner editing with nefarious intent, eh? :p Don't know about that theory, JFAS. Why don't you ask the person who introduced the information months ago? Better yet, why not ask Vassil Dobrev[8]?

And about your ridiculing the notion that Khufu was "more '[N]egroid (than his own sons!)": what? You mean like O.J. Simpson and his fair-skinned, blond children? Of course, that's impossible! No reputable scholar on the planet of whom I am aware pretends that Khufu was anything other than a black man. He is of the Old Kingdom. His mother was from Dhashur in the South. But Khufu had, if memory serves, three wives, one thought to be from Syria. So, a Negroid black man can't produce less Negroid-looking children? What? Just look around. It's happening every day. :pDeeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't catch they were different names (Khufu/Khafre), removed. -- Stbalbach 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with a previously blocked/Arbcom subject making mischievous edits in this and other ancient Egypt related articles. Users who can watch this article, closely related ones, and help watch for subtle (POV, "original research" edit creep) edits over a period of time would help quite a bit.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-13 07:39Z

(Gasp) I've been blocked!!? Before the Arbcom? Gee, maybe I should take a number and get in line.... :p Some advice: try sticking to article content, which is the matter at hand. Deeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason King Khafre is thought to be the person behind the Sphinx is mainly because Tuthmosis IV's stele actually mentions him by name [9]. This is not indicated in the Wikipedia article as far as I can see. So while it's not known with certainty (and probably never will be), indeed, the most widely held view by Egyptologists is that the Sphinx represents Khafra, and so it's not frequently debated except by the new age crowds and other fringe groups. It's believed that Khafre ordered the construction of the Sphinx using the blocks of stone left behind during the quarrying of the Giza Plateau for King Khufu's pyramid. Also, the article doesn't seem to mention that the Sphinx came to be identified thoughout much of its history with the god Horemakhet (Horus-on-the-Horizon). I'm tempted to added this information to the text and also include the Maqrizi quote that was earlier requested, but in anticipation of the page being hacked beyond pale soon thereafter, it's probably not a wise idea. It's sad that in the last few days the only contributions made have been about the extremely tired and offensive subject of the "race" of the Sphinx and ancient Egyptians. — Zerida 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you'll add what you can to this article despite the problems with a couple of people who on occasion drop by and disrupt this effort. I've previously noticed and responded to your helpful contributions to articles related to this (no objections here whatsoever!) and hope that the periodic "interruptions" to these articles don't dissuade anyone from doing their best to make them as accurate and informative as possible despite the chance that creeping POV can cause "bad" reverts.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-13 08:49Z

"Assume good faith." Watch it, guy. Keep it up, and you'll be before the Arbcom. :p Deeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are around 1,000,000 (yes, '1 MILLION editors') and I have no idea of why you would think that chance or your self-importance would make you important enough to be specifically targeted because a few minor edits.

It is good advice in my opinion to not believe everything said about a person unless the listener is that same person and knows that they are true.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-14 09:39Z

Whew. Well, gee. That takes a load off my mind. I'm so glad to know that you're not obsessing. :p Deeceevoice 12:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I also hope you will add it. I've watched this article for about a year and have not seen any serious vandalism, that section about background is at least a year old. The current activity with alternative theories on ethnicity is allowed under Wikipedia rules, but the main part of the article really could be improved on by someone who knows more about it. -- Stbalbach 15:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The section treating descriptions of the Sphinx is perfectly in keeping with an article on this subject. Further, the black identity of the Sphinx isn't seriously in question. Ubiquitous Europeanized depictions of the monument aside, the ethnicity of the Sphinx is so obvious to those who know what to look for, it isn't even a matter of debate these days among respected Egyptologists/historians. I'm still waiting for a contemporary, "majority" viewpoint stating otherwise. :p Deeceevoice 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the black identity of the Sphinx isn't seriously in question - what's in question is, what "black" means. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is more genetic diversity in some cases between villages than in all of Europe. We know this from genetic analysis. This idea of a people who are "black", from 3000 years ago, is meaningless and fruitless from a scientific standpoint; it only has significance to 21st century politics for some groups. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Black" as in being a dead ringer for a modern-day Dinka. "Black" as in human beings haven't changed a whole hell of a lot in 3,000 years. "Black" as in indigenous, pure black African, as in "black" before Semitic invaders. Blue-black-"black" as in a lot of the Nilotic peoples of the Nile Valley today, still. And, yes. The blackness of the Sphinx still has relevance as long as there are racists, like Zahi Hawass who, with the imprimatur of the Arab Egyptian government, continues to attempt to whitewash Egyptian history and sell us on a pale-skinned, hazel-eyed King Tut. While an Arab government keeps the indigenous blacks of Egypt -- the Fellahin -- like third-class citizens, with Arabs shouting racist insults at visiting Africans in the streets. As long as there is the Arab slave trade in black Africans, as long as Arabs (many of them, in truth, black Africans themselves) who have internalized the sickness of white supremacy and race hatred as self-loathing and victimize other blacks; as long as a single one of their miserable victims views their blackness as a curse, a stigma; as long as there are people weaned on Eurocentric lies and Europeanized/whitewashed images, who feel compelled to scream "Afrocentrism" at any mention of blackness in dynastic Egypt; and, hell, as long as there is a desire for the truth, there will be a need to set the historical record straight. And, like it or not, that's why I'm here. Deeceevoice 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now now, it isn't polite to go around calling people racists. I saw Hawass on TV, he seemed to be a well-informed and behaved quite gentlemanly. As Arabs have been in Egypt for at least a thousand years it's probably time to acknowledge that they are Egyptian.

What? You think all racists are inbred rednecks? Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson were all white supremacists, and two of them were slaveholders -- but I don't think they were known for being crude or impolite. White southerns here in the U.S. were known for their "southern hospitality" -- but they, too, held slaves and some treated them most cruelly. What's your point? And of course Hawass is Egyptian. I never said he wasn't. "Egyptian" refers to a nationality -- not ethnicity. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the face of the Sphinx depicts a black man I don't see any problem mentioning it, though it doesn't seem there is really enough evidence to say, and I don't see a lot of argument on pages about other statues arguing over their ethnicity.

The evidence is there in plain sight -- as numerous observers through the ages have recorded, and for us to see for ourselves. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- A novelist deciding the Sphinx is obviously Ethiopian thousands of years later hardly proves anything. He's a NOVELIST

Then, what do you have to say to the forensic expert referred to above by JustforaSecond? Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Eminent academic Schoch thinks the Sphinx is Nubian. He also thinks the Sphinx is female[10]. He also believes in aliens.

You haven't read this discussion in its entirety -- have you? Obviously not. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Police forensic experts aren't really trained in the art of determining ethnicity of vandalized 3,000 year old statues. The Kennewick Man episode illustrates that even highly trained folks can disagree for decades about ethnicities.

Again, the facial projection, or prognathism, of the Sphinx hasn't changed across the millennia -- and that is the critical element in the ascertainment of race. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- We don't know that the sphinx depicts anyone in particular, let alone accurately.

No, we don't know who it is, but it's certainly possible to say what it is -- and that's a black man. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Here's what the Sphinx would have looked like if it were an accurate depiction of Ramses. Is this a "black african" profile? [11]

I've seen this website. This guy's an idiot who doesn't know anything about Egyptology. Clearly, the nose doesn't fit the face -- at all. He's stuck a hooked nose with a narrow nasal index (of the type found in many Nilotic blacks) on a sculpture which is clearly classically Negroid (as in the classic Negroid phenotype). Put Alek Wek's nose on the thing, and we're in business. That makes sense. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just revisited this website (I hadn't before I replied above). And, frankly, the side profile of the statute does, indeed look like a black African profile. I know and have seen plenty black people with this sort of profile. And check the face, wide across cheekbones. Classic Africoid. Most definitely. :p But I'd still bet money that the Sphinx's nose was closer to that of Wek. Deeceevoice 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case it is an interesting discussion, just try to steer clear of incivility, original research and speculation. And please, deeceevoice, don't attempt to insert distorted images or links to them such as the Sphinx profile and the King tut death mask. It just discredits you and causes unnecessary conflict. -Justforasecond 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing distorted about the images here. You've produced absolutely no information to suggest that they are -- just a groundless accusation. You would do well -- again -- to heed your own advice. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Richard Wright once wrote "No American Negro exists, who does not have his private Bigger Thomas living in his skull." Wright might expand to include the Sphinx too- even if there was conclusive proof the statue is Nubian/Negroid/Bantu/Coloured, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the unfortunate situation in Africa with human rights abuses. -- Stbalbach 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read anything by Wright, but I can tell you that Baldwin made similar statements. Any person who has been despised, ignored, targeted, hated, discriminated against, downtrodden, denied opportunity unjustly because of his race (or any other reason/excuse) has the potential for anger and violence. That was Bigger Thomas -- but he has nothing to do with this discussion -- and certainly not with the Sphinx. There was a completely different historical, social and political dynamic at work in a black African nation (in the Sphinx's time) ruled by black Africans. I may miss your point, but from what I can see, there's no connection whatsoever.

My comments speak simply to the reclamation of a people's history -- for its own sake, but also to the importance of a people knowing their own past -- and their inherent, innate right to know and to claim that past. This is particularly important for a degraded and despised people, because one gains strength, vision, purpose and a sense of self from, in part, the example set by one's ancestors. Plain and simple. I had a discussion w/an Egyptian cabbie about this very issue. He looked kind of like a dark-skinned Omar Sharif (only more Africoid) and was known as a "fellah" in the country of his birth. He spoke despairingly and surprisingly openly of the "inferiority complex" he and his countrymen have under the Arab regime. He had a kind of inchoate sense of the truth of his people's history, but felt overwhelmed by the crush of propaganda and at a loss as to what to do about it. Sad as hell when a people don't know fully their own history or understand the means by which they can empower themselves. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

voice of restraint

This looks more like a debate group or forum than an encyclopedia, but I´d like to add my input. It doesn´t really matter whether the one depicted in the sphinx was a Negro, since the ancient Egyptian population and even now, has always been mixed and there have been all kinds of "racial types" in it, equally wrong are Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, both extreme and unreasonable positions.

I suggest the material in

http://www.geocities.com/duarta/index7.html

might be useful to clarify things,someof it is in French, most though is in English. I sign: A VOICE OF RESTRAINT. —This unsigned comment was added by 201.217.142.139 (talk • contribs) .

The distinctly Africoid characteristics of the person portrayed are significant, because many images of the Giza sphinx have been misrepresented/Europeanized. Further, to provide such descriptive information is as legitimate and reasonable (as with any other monument/work of art) as providing any other factual information, such as the subject's gender, the length and height of the structure, etc. It is descriptive -- nothing more. What one chooses to infer from that information is another thing entirely. But to deliberately omit (or delete) it would be unwarranted. That has nothing to do with "restraint" or being "reasonable," but everything to do with censorship. Deeceevoice 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how you guys will pre-emptively strike deeceevoice down, i will take this issue up. Firstly. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the african/africoid aspects of any people, group, or scuplture anywhere in the world where the tendacy exists. The sphinx definitely shows those characteristiscs. There is no reason to cry out for restraint regarding something that in an unbiased perspective, requires no restraint due to its mere mention. She had a good reference. Put it back, and her comments. Stop with the "anything mentioned as black is a lightning rod of controversy in Egyptian history" routine. It's old, it's tired, its annoying. - Zaph --208.254.174.148 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The old tired game

what's in question is, what "black" means. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is more genetic diversity in some cases between villages than in all of Europe. We know this from genetic analysis. This idea of a people who are "black", from 3000 years ago, is meaningless and fruitless from a scientific standpoint; it only has significance to 21st century politics for some groups. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (partial quote taken from thread above)

I am so sick and tired of this silly game. If you white racists want to take ownership of a culture or legacy, your definition of black becomes more restrictive. If you have disdain for an individual or a group of people, your definition of black becomes more nebulous. It's certainly meaningless, however in the context of Egypt, you can't explain the similarities between Egyptians and Nubians and Kushites and say "oh what a coiencidence, those non-black Egyptians have characteristics that other black people have too." Why don't you guys debate Dienekes Pontikos who swears that the Greeks are white Indo-Europeans. The issue is clear, Egyptians are a part of a Nilo-Saharic group, not a Semetic, or European group. The Nilo-Saharic groups are a predominantly Black-Negroid group. Not a Caucasoid group. But of course Caucasoids have been redefinied (from their original Azerbaijan/Georgian origin) to encompass people from RWANDA to East India. So those groups with their 20th and 19th century politics, are the ones who really need correction. Don't make me come back in here. - Zaph

Suggest taking it up at Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, sounds like a bigger problem than the Great Sphinx. -- Stbalbach 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is not working out. Although there are innumerable pictures of sculptures, mummies, and frescoes of Egyptians that look obviously Black, others contend that this is due to "marfan's syndrome, symbolism, tanning, and everything else but the obvious". This is why I believe the Eurocentric position is one of a psychological nature and not an objective disagreement. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, have you noticed that they keep moving the subject of the Sphinx's ethnicity down the page to the section under the subhead "Alternative theories"? It's ridiculous/sick. The section deals specifically with a descriptive element of the sphinx and is not a "theory." The section belongs squarely under "Description." Deeceevoice 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Race that ruled Egypt

I can't understand why you are arguing about the facial features of the Great Sphinx. The really interesting fact is that Ancient Egypt was ruled by a race with the heads like humans and the bodies like lions. Rich Farmbrough 17:10 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Funny. Deeceevoice 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More seriously the citeation seems to be back to Sgt. Domingo's findings, in West's, Serpent in the Sky (1993), pp. 230-232.. Perhaps someone has access to this? Rich Farmbrough 14:34 28 March 2006 (UTC).]

I don't -- which is my I used the source I did. Either way, I'm confident it says the same thing. It's a blackman. :p Deeceevoice 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.