Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 1

message: 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:
#"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?
#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.
#"hermetic calculation" .. this needs more explanation on the use of the hermetic which has multiple meanings, or a link.
#"They claim".. who is they? 
#"Out of bounds" Out of bounds from, or for, what/who?
--Stbalbach 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edit

message: 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)
thread_title:  6000BC -- earlier or later? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alien origins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Differentiating between water erosion and panleonine theories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sphynx's nose 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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:  
Justforasecond 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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..  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.), 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)

text: *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)

text: *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)

text: *: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Changes to Black African theory 

message: 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."  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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The race speculations

message: 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)
thread_title: voice of restraint

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The old tired game