Skip to main content

The Sphinx's Identity Khafre 1

Khafre 1Khafre?Khafre 2
What pharaoh was the Great Sphinx at Giza meant to resemble? Because evidence indicates that the Sphinx was fashioned during Khafre's reign, most Egyptologists have concluded that the king had it made in his own likeness. It has become the tendency of late for proponents of the "old Sphinx" theory to dispute this conclusion based on the observation that the Sphinx's face does not resemble the face of Khafre at all. This is evidence, they say, that someone else built the Sphinx, and during a much earlier era at that. At least one author, John Anthony West, has gone so far as to enlist the aid of a forensic police artist to help make his case (see Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt, 1993, pp. 230-232). But when the face of the Sphinx is compared to the face of Khafre, what exactly is being compared? It might seem obvious, but it really isn't.
West's method was to compare the face on the Sphinx with the face of Khafre as represented by the famous diorite statue in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo (see photo above, left). But this assumes that the face on the statue matches exactly the face of the pharaoh Khafre in life. Can we really accept this assumption with a significant degree of confidence? There is another statue of Khafre, made of alabaster, at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (see photo above, right). It differs in some respects to the diorite statue, and one wonders what the forensic artist would conclude upon comparing these two likenesses of the same pharaoh.
In ancient Egypt, it wasn't so much the physical similarity of a statue to its owner that lent its identity, but rather the name on the inscription. Statues were idealized representations, even in the Old Kingdom, and the figure could only be related to a particular individual when the inscription was added. This artistic protocol made it easy for statues of one pharaoh to be usurped by another. W. Stevenson Smith wrote:
Inscriptions are ... a necessary part of the statues. They provide the essential identity of the owner by giving his titles and name, although the portrayal of his outward appearance is usually generalized without individual characteristics, except in certain outstanding works... [The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 1981, p. 18]
But even assuming that the diorite statue of Khafre is one of these "outstanding works" that imitates in photographic quality the likeness of its owner, can the same be said of the Sphinx? The Sphinx was carved from limestone bedrock that doubtless presented certain limitations due to the stone's layers, fissures, and friability, any of which might affect its shape. The face of the Sphinx was likely carved by a team of workmen rather than a single dedicated artist, and the king would not have posed while the image was created. Both of these factors might allow for further deviation from the real. There is a sloppiness in the execution if not the design of the face of the Sphinx. Its left (north) eye is higher than its right (south) eye, and its mouth is a bit off-center. The axis of the outline of the head differs from the axis of the facial features. The quality of details apparent on the face of the diorite Khafre are absent from the face of the Sphinx.
Trying to match the face on the Great Sphinx with the face of any known pharaoh is something of an exercise in futility. The Sphinx was an idealized representation of the king, and its unique identification with a particular individual was secured by means of inscription rather than physical similarity. Time, or perhaps a subsequent ruler, has erased the original name, but as with other ancient Egyptian statuary and monuments, it was essential that the owner be identified by name before it could serve its purpose. Similitude was not a requirement.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The bindweeds of Egypt and their symbolic role for the deceased

http://www.egyptraveluxe.com/cairo_half_day_tour_to_cairo_egyptian_museum.php From the Middle Kingdom until the 18th Dynasty, representations are found of a parasitic bindweed associated with the stems of papyrus, . Its representations increase and refine themselves during the Amarnian period because of the naturalistic leaning to nature; but it is in Ramesside times, and more particularly that of Ramesses II, that the images become more beautiful and most detailed. The plant is frequently attached to the stem of the papyrus, or to bouquets, but being also able to, more rarely, exist separately. After the 20th Dynasty, if the theme persists, the quality of the representations decrease (as do all more representations of nature). This success under the Ramesseses is probably linked with the specific beliefs of that time, and notably the eminent place that the solar cults occupy. The nature of the plant has been under debate a long time ...
Post a Comment
Read more

what exactly happened to the Sphinx's nose?

The Sphinx's Nose The nose of the Great Sphinx at Giza is made conspicuous by its absence. What happened to it? The popular story is that the troops of Napoleon Bonaparte used the nose for target practice in 1798. Drawings done for La Description de L'Egypte depict a noseless Sphinx. The Sphinx, 1743. In 1737, British traveler Richard Pococke visited Egypt and made a sketch of the Sphinx that was published six years later. The nose is shown intact, but Pococke likely exercised his poetic license by adding it when it was not there (earlier, in 1579, Johannes Helferich had further taken an artist's liberties by depicting the Sphinx with a nose -- and with decidedly female features). Frederick Lewis Norden, an artist and marine architect, also sketched the Sphinx in 1737. His detailed drawings, published in 1755, were more realistic and showed the Sphinx with no nose. It is very unlikely that Norden would omit the nose if it was present. We can conclude that the...
Post a Comment
Read more

US authorities return eight stolen ancient Egyptian artifacts

US authorities agreed to return eight ancient Egyptian artifacts stolen and illegally smuggled out of the country. Today, upon his arrival from the United States, Minister of Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim announced that US authorities agreed to return eight ancient Egyptian artefacts stolen and illegally smuggled out of the country. The objects are to arrive next month. The pieces include the upper part of a painted anthropoid wooden sarcophagus from the Third Intermediate period depicting a face of a woman wea ring a wig decorated with coloured flowers. Two linen mummy wrappings covered with plaster and bearing paintings showing winged amulets pushing the sun disc are also among the artefacts. Hieroglyphic text showing the name and titles of the deceased are also found on the plaster cover. The third piece is a cartonage painted mummy mask from the Third Intermediate period while the fourth and fifth items are Middle Kingdom wooden boats. The other three items are lim...
Post a Comment
Read more