Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza

Potential Dating Error
This may be the fault of citing an old source but the section on "Early Egypologists" begins: "In 1857, Auguste Mariette, founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, unearthed the much later Inventory Stela (estimated to be from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt, c. 678–525 BC),..." The 26th dynasty was established in 664 when Psamtek/Psammetichus seized the throne. This earlier date *may* be considering Psamtek's father, Necho I, as part of the 26th dynasty but this is not an orthodox opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.101.114 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the dates. Thank you for pointing this out. A. Parrot (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
is commonly believed to have been designed, sculpted, and constructed by ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom during the reign of the pharaoh Khafre - It is accepted, not believed! The vast majority of Egyptologists have demonstrated this over and over. There are a few fringe theories out there with a handful of followers. The way this is worded is implying that there are several other, strongly contested and proven theories. The fact is there are not. It needs to be rewritten to show that this is the ACCEPTED theory, not just believed, and not one of several equally as strong claims2A00:23C4:215:C500:0:D2CA:4AE1:57B3 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC) If someone more experienced than me could do this edit it would be appreciated. It is not one of many accepted theories, it is the only accepted theory to date Giant-Dwarfs Talk  14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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


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

Rain and water table
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=90IYxaMfWZ0&t=1091s&fbclid=IwAR0HXtxjN03sAyh15DoD_fKD1JuojRG2MH_zDO73wVN8DTYlrnXhl4cqPwYWN@TL - The Great Sphinx, From the Eocene to the Anthropocene. Robert Schneiker. 2017.11.01] Doug Weller  talk 12:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Well spotted. Feel free to change it. Hypnôs (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ — thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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