5.THE SPHINX & GIZA PYRAMIDS: WHEN WERE THEY REALLY CONSTRUCTED AND WHY?

Summary:

There are two current theories about the Sphinx and The Pyramids at Giza.

1. The establishment view is that they were all created around 2500B.C.

2. There are several alternate views, some of which argue that the pyramids predate 2500 B.C. and/or were not meant as tombs. There is some evidence that both parts of this argument may be true. But that is not the alternative view I want to talk about.

The major alternate view of the pyramids accepts the 2500 B.C. date of pyramid construction. But many of them argue, most especially Bauval and Hancock, that the Giza pyramids have a special function.

They suggest that the pyramids represent the belt stars in the constellation of Orion, and as such, are an attempt to mirror it. The argument also holds that the Sphinx is a much earlier sculpture (by thousands of years) and that it is a lion representing the constellation Leo that points to Orion at a specific time in the past ( 10, 500 B.C.).

My artistic view:

The sphinx’s face: The crude carving of the face of the sphinx is evidence the sphinx was created much earlier than 2500 B.C. or even 3000 B.C. because by that time, Egyptian art had been formalized and codified to insure the exquisite symmetry, beauty and proportions we see in all Egyptian art. It is impossible to believe that the Sphinx was carved at the same time as the beautiful temples and figures created after 3000 B.C. It would not have been permitted.

The length of the Sphinx’s body. The extreme length of the body is due to the fact that its length is that of a cheetah, not a lion. Even the proportion of the head to the body is that of a cheetah. The cheetah, the most beautiful of the Egyptians’ beloved cats, is a more fitting symbol of the intense soul-driven, psychic nature of early Egyptian culture prior to 3000B.C., while a lion is a more fitting symbol of Egypt in its later empire-building, martial stage of development (2500-1500 B.C.).

This cheetah-like length is further evidence that the Sphinx was created very early in the development of Egyptian culture, something echoed by the geological dating by Robert Schock, ageologist who holds that the rain weathering indicates the Sphinx was built around 7000-10,000 B.C.

Galactic Timing. If the sphinx is a cheetah, then it could not represent the constellation Leo ( a la Bauvelt and Hancock) .

Also, the Zodiac (and Leo,one of its 12 constellations) were not created by the Babylonians until around 1000 B.C. Thus the view that the Sphinx is a very early (prior to 2500 B.C.) galactic pointer utilizing Leo and Orion to point precisely to 10, 500 B.C.) fails to hold up because Leo and the Zodiac didn't exist until 1000 B.C.

My own view is that the positioning of the Sphinx ( which points east to the direction of the rising Sun, RA) is not accidental. It may be simply that it points to the rising sun, a sacred direction for all preliterate peoples. Or it may be more complex, perhaps pointing to a galactic event we are unaware of, or it may be to a a different time ( a la Bauvelt and Hancock) since without the Leo connection their timing could vary up or down by multiples of 1600 years.

OK here's the the rough detail first.

There is much alternative thinking devoted to correcting the traditional mainstream position that the age of the the Egyptian Sphinx is approximately 4500 years old, i.e, it was built around 2500BC.

I agree with much of the alternative thinking.

Solid geological evidence of rain water wear indicates it must have been constructed sometime around or before 7,000 BC, when rains were plentiful. This is the kind of scientific evidence that is hard to dispute.

In addition, a theory has been put forth by alternative thinkers Bauval and Hancock that claims the positions of the Nile, the 3 Giza pyramids, and the "lion-maned" Sphinx "mirror" the Spring equinox sunrise position of Orion, the Constellation Leo (the Lion), and the Milky Way as they would have been in 10, 500 B.C.

Here is the Wikipedia summary of that theory:

An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is an accurate reflection or “map” of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.^[11]

A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion’s Belt and the horizon was an “exact match” to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. This time period also coincides with the American psychic Edgar Cayce’s “dating” of Atlantis. These and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.

As the sun and Orion were key heavenly bodies in Egyptian theology, it is reasonable to argue that the position of the pyramids and a purposefully redirected Nile were used to reflect the heavenly positioning of Orion and the Milky way at a vernal equinox (Sunrise) date, in 10,500 B.C., that date being the traditional date to begin Spring planting.

( I say this even though the Egyptians, in practice, used the height of the Nile for that purpose. The height was a clear indicator that it would soon flood, and that planting should begin. The Equinox time, however, was still an important solar event.)

As for the Sphinx, it's positioning is no accident. It is pointing east, a critical (sun/ RA is born) spiritual position. The eastward-pointing Sphinx may be additionally pointing at some heavenly body or galactic event that was in that position at a specific time in the past, such as the one Bauval and Hancock propose: that the Sphinx gazes toward a critical heavenly event in the year 10,500.

If that is true, then the positioning of the pyramids next to the Sphinx further validates their theory that the Sphinx was a very ancient alignment anchor already in place.

Some scholars, however, have used Bauval and Hancock's critical assumption of a Sphinx/Leo connection to shoot the whole theory down by pointing out that the Leo Constellation would not have been known to the Egyptians, either in 2500 B.C. or 10,500 B.C., because the Zodiac wasn't formulated by the Babylonians until 1000 B.C.

Other scholars further point out that such an alignment in 10, 500 BC would have pointed to to what we know as Virgo, not Leo.

Thus, the association of the constellation Leo with the "lion-like" Sphinx goes up in smoke. But is it the weak link that will bring the entire house down?

Not necessarily. We also have to consider this: despite the 1000 B.C. date given for the Babylonians invention of the Zodiac, it is hard to believe that the Egyptians, who were sophisticated stargazers, did not have some kind of astronomical scheme similar to the Babylonian zodiac much earlier, as even Bronze age (3000 BC) cultures had Zodiac-like versions of the rotating heavens.

I believe this may also be true about the Egyptian Pre-dynastic cultures dating back to 5000 B.C., for the simple reason that it is becoming clear that all preliterate cultures were sophisticated stargazers and sun/moon/star-plotters.

And it is also possible that some proto-Egyptian culture existing around 10,500 B.C. also had possession of that "zodiac" knowledge as well.

Thus, to my mind, these Leo/Virgo/Zodiac objections simply show us that we don't know very much about Egyptian astronomy in any period.

While the association of the Lion-like Sphinx with the Babylonian sign Leo most probably has to be thrown out the window, it is entirely possible that it's positioning reflects the positioning of an "Egyptian zodiac" sign at a specific point in time. I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, if an "Egyptian zodiac" scheme ever is discovered, to find that one of its signs represented the cheetah.

At any rate, it seems very clear that the pyramid/Nile positioning mirrors the Orion/Milky way heavenly positioning and also, quite possibly, that the Sphinx may be pointing not only east, but additionally at Orion in conjunction with some other significant "Egyptian zodiac" sign or heavenly event representing a specific time in the past.

If that latter proposition is true, then the entire Orion, sun, Milky Way positioning of the pyramids is also related to the galactic/time positioning of the Sphinx.

After all, the Giza pyramids could have been constructed elsewhere, and they would have been (as others had been) if the Egyptians hadn't felt that the anciently-aligned Sphinx was an integral part of the positioning equation.

The only question that remains to be answered then is WHAT heavenly event they are pointing and at WHAT point in time?

That is not an easy question to answer, and I won't pretend I have any answers.

I can say however that there is significant Spaniard in the woodpile when it comes to proposing that the Egyptians of 2500 B.C. were in possession of any date/heavenly position data that had been created by the our proposed preliterate Sphinx builders.

If that time/event were in the very distant preliterate past (say 5000B.C. or 10, 500 B.), those cultures would have had no way of transmitting that date/time to the literate Egyptians of 2500 B.C. who were building the pyramids and ( it seems) positioning them in some relationship to the Sphinx.

Preliterate cultures had a sense of time that went one moon, two moons, many moons. Sorry, that's the way it worked. Transmittable time/dates only exist in literate cultures.

Nor would the Egyptians in 2500 B.C. have anyway of computing backwards over vast amounts of time to deduce the heavenly positions of Orion and some conjunction of Orion and some other astral event or body.

Thus the best that could be hoped to have been transmitted by those distant cultures to the literate Egyptians of 2500 B. C. was an oral poem/myth, or perhaps a stone carving, indicating that the Sphinx gazed toward the east, but also at the vernal equinox as well as at a specific astral body/event, say a recognizable star collection/constellation such as Scorpio. But as to what specific historical time this conjunction had occurred would be missing, so our Spaniard is still in the woodpile.

Still such a carving or myth would have been of some help to the Egyptians in 2500 B.C., but they would have been left to their own devices as to what the historical times was. After all, astral bodies all go thru cycles, and picking the cycle depicted is the impossible trick. It is even more difficult for a galactic event ( a nova) since they don't repeat themselves.

Yet we know of no such myth or carving, but that is not to say that one didn't exist. Still for that stone or myth to have survived intact over thousand and thousands of years is highly unlikely. If it had happened, that myth/stone would have been honored in the same way Moses tablets were or the Islamic stone at Mecca, i.e., a serious mention of it should exist somewhere in the hieroglyphs that have survived.

Hancock suggests that a literate shadow culture existed over a 10,000 year period parallel to these distant preliterate cultures and that these distant dates were in its possession, but he deserves a good spanking for that confection.

Thus the best we can propose is that the Sphinx points toward something more specific than merely east, but when that distant event occurred in historical time is up for grabs. Sorry, but that's the way it works.

All I can do is give you my detailed artistic thinking on the Sphinx/Leo/10,500 B.C./ Pyramid / Nile alignment controversy and why I believe it shows that the construction of the Sphinx was earlier than 2500B.C., in fact much earlier.

It is based on two things:

1. THE SHAPE OF THE SPHINX
2. THE ASTRAL POSITIONING ASSUMPTIONS

Let's take THE SHAPE OF THE SPHINX first.

It is clear to any artist that the Sphinx is a mess. The sculptural quality and proportions of the Sphinx ( for a lion) are horrible.

If we concede for a moment that it was a very early sculpture, that would account for it not being on a par with sculptures done after 3300B.C and for sure after 2700 B.C.

But I am going to suggest something else: not only that it is indeed early, and indeed of poor sculptural quality (especially in the face), but that the body proportions are not a mess, as they are not those of a lion but a cheetah, as the proportions of the Sphinx (long body, small head, long tail) are identical to that of a cheetah.

Even the re-building of the outside skin from time to time to check the rain wear damage doesn't negate this obvious shape. It is a cheetah.

We can see other , smaller sphinx sculptures made by the Egyptians that do accurately resemble lions in their muscularity and shape. But the ancient Sphinx is clearly not a lion.

So we now have a clear artistic objection to the Leo Constellation /"lion-like" Sphinx connection in addition to the astronomical objections.

It is clear that the proponents of that connection, like most archeologists, thought the Sphinx was a lion so they naturally assumed it should be pointing at Leo, but they weren't quite on the money for the reasons cited.
















The common assumption that the various Egyptian sphinxes are "lions" is understandable because most of them do have the proportions of a lion, but the Sphinx doesn't. It is a cheetah.


So let's get back to the cheetah. look at its face. It is the face of a cat. Your cat. A lion's face doesn't look like your cat.

What everyone seems to be missing about the Sphinx (as a cheetah) is that it's a very beautiful big cat, and the Egyptians were drawn to cats. They even mummified them.

My guess is they loved cats for their exquisite beauty and mysterious, non-logical ways, which is not a bad description of the nature of the mystical, soul-driven Egyptian culture itself.

The mystical nature of Egyptian culture is something often glossed over by our scientific thinkers, who don't really know how to handle it.

My sense of is that both the shaman Black Elk and Castenada's nagual, Don Juan, would have felt right at home with the psychically-driven Egyptian priests.

Someone once said that the Egyptian culture didn't have a religion, that Egypt was the religion. And it is evident that cats walked through it like they owned it.

But again, the cheetah. And the lion.

Both the lion and the cheetah ranged throughout Egypt in preliterate times.

But the cheetah is more cat-like, and cats are a symbol of the psychic world and always have been.

The lion embodies power, domination, it is a warrior symbol.

The cheetah is more of a match for the essence of the Egyptian culture, which was obsessed with the soul, not war, especially in its formative years in the early Pre-dynastic period (5000 B.C. to 3300 B.C.) because that is the nature of these early preliterate Mother Goddess dominated cultures. This would have been even truer for a Proto-Egyptian culture.

While the lion played a symbolic role in Egyptian culture, it was only in its later war-like, empire-building moments, which came and went.

What endured was the mystical, spiritual nature of Egyptian culture, which anchored it from the very beginning.

The beautiful, cat-like cheetah is a more fitting symbol of that bedrock aspect of Egyptian culture, and the further we go back in time, away from Empires and wars , the more dominant it becomes.

It is no secret that the cheetah was highly regarded by the Egyptians. We see this by the fact they were often kept as pets by royalty.

They were soul companions.

Realizing the shape is that of a cheetah fits with an early 3300 B.C. to 10, 500 B.C. creation date for the Sphinx.

So much for the significance of the cheetah.

2. THE ASTRAL POSITIONING ASSUMPTIONS

First of all, if we suspect (as Bauval and Hancock do) that the origin of the Sphinx (and its positioning) is connected to a major event in the very distant past, then the Sphinx/pyramid positioning most probably does point to some important heavenly body or galactic event position in the past. And the vernal equinox sunrise timing is just as good as any to focus on.

If the Sphinx is not pointing at the Zodiac Leo, as it seems not to be, who cares? We can be assured it's pointing at something important in the night skies. We simply don't know what.

If we don't necessarily believe in the 10,500 B.C. date, but believe in the positioning theory, then we have to begin to search for some heavenly event and time where the Sphinx/pyramid/Nile alignment occurs with as much correlation to the Orion/Milky way positioning as the 10,500 B.C. date does, and that (SURPRISE!) will happen every 1600 years or so, which is the time it takes for Orion to begin rising in a new precession (Zodiac sign) window at vernal equinox time.

So you can begin to take your pick of the possibilities by walking forward or backwards from 10,500 B.C. in 1600 year increments. Do the math. All will yield the same Sphinx/pyramid/Nile mirroring of the Orion/Nile positioning as Bauval and Hancock's 10,500 B.C. date.

Any further mental gymnastics I leave to others.

However, what I am qualified to speak on as an artist is the following:



THE SHAPE OF THE SPHINX AND HOW IT POINTS TOWARD CERTAIN POSSIBLE DATES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Based on the crudeness of the face carving, (which is so devoid of the high artistic standards of Dynastic Egypt) and the unrealistic body proportions (for a lion) it is clear that the Sphinx was created sometime before the first of the Dynastic periods began around 3100 B.C, or at least before 2700 B.C., when the rules and codification of proportion and symmetry of Egyptian sculpture came into full force.

Can anyone seriously believe that such a crude sculpture would have been allowed carved side by side with the exquisite Giza pyramids? Wake up!

What this means is that there is the distinct possibility that an early version of the Sphinx was first roughly carved out of a rock formation during the early Pre-Dynastic Egyptian period.

Or, and this is also likely, that it was carved by a Proto-Egyptian people unknown to the Egyptians and that the Egyptians simply maintained and honored it (and its astral positioning), as the Aztecs did Teotihuacan.

Thus, it is clear from the artistic evidence that the Sphinx is older than 2500 B.C.

How much older is the question. It is most likely as old as 7000B.C. simply because of the rain damage evidence, which is hard scientific evidence, and maybe as old as 10,500B.C. or even older.

The crudeness of the face carving suggests somewhere at least before 3300 B.C., as that is the point in time when Egyptian art began to conform to a exquisite aesthetic.

Again, it is impossible for me to believe that we can date other exquisitely proportioned sculptures to around 3300 B.C. and still believe that something as important as the Sphinx would be allowed to be so crudely sculpted.



The Egyptians loved symmetry and proportion, it was key to their artistic aesthetic, so you can't disregard my artistic dating of the Sphinx. It is a distinctly unlikely possibility that a crudely sculpted Sphinx would have been allowed after 3300 B. C. and an absolute impossibility of it being allowed after 2700 B.C.


SOME MORE ARTISTIC/ASTRAL POSITIONING CONSIDERATIONS

That same aesthetic love of proportion and symmetry destined the Egyptians of 2500 B.C. to position the 3 majestic pyramids (and move the Nile River to more closely mirror the Milky Way) so the entire configuration (Sphinx, pyramids, Nile) would mirror not only the astral positioning of Orion and the Milky Way, but also, as some propose, that the Sphinx's ancient positioning would time-position that mirroring at some spiritually-critical heavenly event and time.

Let me make one small step backward here, and state again that it is entirely possible that the Sphinx/Giza complex does not point to some spiritually-critical heavenly event and time. The Sphinx may simply point toward the East, because that is the direction of the birthplace of the Gods. It is a spiritual direction, and for preliterate peoples the most important direction.

Our modern archeologists and scientific investigators are often blind to the reason why all early human migrations were to the east. It wasn't for more food or room. It was to find the Gods. And the Egyptians, a highly spiritual culture, were no exception to this obsession.

But if we suspect there is something more to the Sphinx's positioning than merely pointing to the east, that its ancient positioning already mirrored some spiritually-critical heavenly event, then there is good reason to believe that the Giza pyramid/Nile positioning mirroring the Orion/sun/Milky way positioning is intimately related to the meaning of the earlier alignment of the Sphinx.

So much for positioning. It's clear that the entire Giza complex may be mirroring a spiritually-critical Egyptian astral position and time. It may be in 10, 500 B.C., and it may not be. So far, 10,500 B.C. has a tenuous lead.


MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE SHAPE OF THE SPHINX AND WHAT IT CAN TELL US

Equally important, and I again say this as an artist, the Sphinx is the only Egyptian sculpture that completely lacks the sublime beauty, proportion and harmony of all Egyptian art.

In fact, it is downright ugly, especially the face. I'm not talking about the broken parts, but the proportions and delicacy of the non-broken parts: the eyes, mouth, eyebrows, ears.

It surprises me that no one has ever mentioned this, but it is immediately evident to any artist. The uniformly codified, symmetric beauty of all Egyptian art is one of its unique hallmarks, as the examples below show.

The majestic, codified beauty of all Egyptian art is self evident.

This strongly indicates that the Sphinx was not created at the time of the pyramids (2500 B.C.), but much much earlier, as Egyptian art began to be codified during the period 3100-2700 BC, which is why, from 2700 B.C. on, it is so uniformly beautiful in symmetry and proportion. My own guess is the sphinx was carved sometime before 3300 B.C.

Yet despite this artistic evidence, archeologists assure us that the Sphinx was built around 2500 B.C.

Two of the major historical facts used in dating the construction of the Sphinx to 2500 B.C., or perhaps slightly earlier (2700-31000 B.C.) are two elements seen in the headdress. The nemes, or draped royal head dress and the uraeus, or serpent’s head in the middle of the forehead of the nemes.

The nemes argument is as follows: the first appearance of the nemes, or draped royal head dress, is in 2700 B.C. Therefore, the Sphinx could not have been carved before 2700 B.C.

A similar argument concerns the uraeus, or serpent’s head in the middle of the forehead of the nemes. Since the first appearance of the uraeus is in 3100 B.C., the Sphinx could not have been constructed until after 3100 B.C.

The alternative counter argument to both of these positions is that the carving of the Sphinx was very early and that the current face (along with the nemes and the uraeus) is a re-carving done sometime after 3100 B.C. or 2700 B.C.

From the serious geological evidence of rainwear on the Sphinx (suggesting it was built sometime around 7000 B.C., when the rains were plentiful) the alternative counter argument of a re-carving has to be taken seriously.

But first, let's get rid of one clever idea, and that is that the current face is a 2500 B.C. re-carving of a much earlier lion's head. I dismiss the idea of a lion out of hand because it shows a dismal ignorance of the fact that a carving of the size and position of the Sphinx would never have been of an animal alone.

Egyptians, like all early preliterate cultures, created small sculptures of rams, cats, hippos etc. as a part of their artistic menagerie. But a sculpture as large as the Sphinx placed in such an important position speaks of an important spiritual statement.

And the spiritual statement that occupied all preliterate cultures, including the Egyptians, was their recognition of the special, godlike place that the human animal held among all other animals.

This was always represented by showing a man/animal hybrid figure. Here are preliterate man/animal hybrid sculptures.

It doesn't matter which part was animal and which part was human. It varied depending on the emphasis the sculptor wished to make: an animal head emphasized the instinctive intelligence of man. A animal body emphasized the basic animal nature of humans.

The standing lion man is dated to 32,000 B.C.

The earliest representations of the centaur and Zobek, the Egyptian alligator God, are dated to respectively, 3300B.C and 2700 B.C., although there may be earlier versions yet to be discovered.






So I think the lion's head argument can be dispensed with.

But we do have to consider whether the Sphinx's current face is a re-carving of an even cruder face, and that the nemes and uraeus were also sculpted as a part of that re-carving.

Let's take a look at some problems associated with this proposition:


One thing that is problematic about a possible face re-carving is determining a date for that re-carving.

If it was after 2700 B. C., then the re-carving completely ignored the aesthetic standards for quality and proportion that were rigidly enforced after 2700 B.C.

So we can dismiss that date (2700 B.C.) because it is impossible to believe that its obviously low aesthetic quality would have been allowed on such an important sculpture.

Making it even more impossible is believing that the nemes was created as a part of that 2700 B.C. re-carving..

If so , then the new head (and nemes) would have had to be carved out of an extremely large "older" head, one twice as big if not three times as big, as the new face.

This would mean that the "older " Sphinx's proportions (head to body) would have been very strange: a body whose length to width proportions are those of a cheetah with an absolutely huge human head.

Yet, it's possible and can't be dismissed.

The question is, however, when was that re-carving done?

If after 2700B.C., we still can't overcome the Egyptian codification of proportion and symmetry that would have prevented such a crude re-carving.

Therefore it had to be earlier.


Here is my suggestion as to whether the accepted 2700 B.C. dating of the nemes is irrefutable and therefore dates the Sphinx's construction to after 2700 B.C.

First of all, the dating of the menes as a Dynastic royal head dress is based on the first sculptural appearance we have of it in 2700 B.C. . Yet it is far from conclusive. There may be much earlier appearances of it still buried in the sands.

After all, the Dynastic royal nemes is really a spiffed-up, sun-protection head dress that has been used for millennia by desert dwellers everywhere in the desert world and thus it may simply be an adopted symbol of what it means to be a human desert dweller.

If the Sphinx is indeed an early spiritual man/animal hybrid statement, then the face could well represent a human, not a king or leader.

Of course, over time, the head shade, may have been adopted as a symbol of rank, but that adoption could have occurred at any time.

As such, it must have been used for thousands of years in Pre-Dynastic Egypt (and possibly in a Proto-Egyptian culture) before it was codified in 2700 B.C. as a royal head dress.

Thus despite the accepted proposition that such head dresses were codified as "royal"and given the name nemes around 2700 B.C., a much earlier version of the the "nemes" could have easily ( and most likely) existed.

Which leads me to believe that the carved face and draped headdress are original, and very old,

or

the first face was very old and indeed huge and that re-carving of the head and nemes was done at a very early date.

One last thing, as the uraeus (serpent's head) on the forehead center of the nemes is not seen in sculpture until 3100 B.C.

So how could it be possibly on a very early (7000B.C.) sphinx. The answer is as follows:

Like the nemes, it may have existed at an earlier time, and be on a sculpture still to be discovered.

Yet if we take the 3100 B.C. date as accurate, it is entirely possible that if the original face and head dress were carved before that 3100 B.C. date, the uraeus could have been added to the draped head dress sometime after 3100 B.C., as it would have been easily accomplished by carving out the front of the menes, which could help explain why the forehead of the face protrudes only slightly.

These artistic considerations lead me to the conclusion that the Sphinx we see was carved at a date prior to the codification of Egyptian art. That codification was in full force by 2700 B.C., and is evident as early as 3100 B.C.

So the artistic evidence points toward an initial carving prior to at least 3100 B.C. but that is a minimum date. It could go way back.

The rain wear evidence points to 7000 B.C., or even earlier.

So the artistic and geological evidence clearly indicate that the Sphinx may indeed date back to a very early date.


And we can be assured that its positioning was no accident.

Whatever culture it was that carved the initial Sphinx could have carved it out of the bedrock in any position, but they chose one. The Sphinx was carved to gaze at something highly significant to that culture.

"Accidents" didn't exist in preliterate cultures, nor did "chance", as they do in our culture.

We can be assured that the significant event was highly spiritual as well, because that is what early preliterate cultures were consumed by: the spiritual, just as we are consumed by the logical.

Indeed it is the key to understanding preliterate Egypt because that psychically-driven age is most probably where the Sphinx originated.

It is also the key to truly understanding the Sphinx: why it was built, what its astral orientation meant, why it was made so large, what its "cheetah likeness" meant, and why the literate, more logical Dynastic Egyptians held it in such high esteem.




scylla@comcast.net ss1

scylla@c