EARTHQUEST NEWS

Andrew Collins Newsletter Vol. 12 No. 1 (May 2009)

vii. The Sphinx Mystery by Robert Temple with Olivia Temple

The most talked about new book at the moment in the subject of ancient mysteries is The Sphinx Mystery by Robert and Olivier Temple (Inner Traditions, 2009). Robert Temple is, of course, the bestselling author of books such as The Sirius Mystery (1976) and The Crystal Sun (2000). Robert and his wife Olivia's subject matter for this new book is the mystery of the Sphinx, and the fruits of their research come highly recommended from a number of different authors in the subject, who each provide testimonials for the cover.

Among the many claims made in The Sphinx Mystery is that before the Giza Sphinx became an andro-sphinx, i.e. a lion with a human head, it was an enormous statue of the god Anubis in the form of a recumbent jackal, complete with long pointed ears and extended canine muzzle. It is a subject that Robert Temple first touched upon in The Sirius Mystery, although here it is a vision outlined in depth. The authors point out that even by the Pyramid age the god Anubis was seen as the guardian not just of the entrance to the duat-underworld, whose earthly entrance was Rostau, the ancient name for Giza, but that the jackal god also guarded the otherworldly land of the dead, located in the direction of the setting sun. Pyramid complexes and dynastic cemeteries were invariably situated on the west bank of the Nile for this very reason, since they functioned as physical representations of, or at least access points into, the conceived realm of the dead.

The Temples argue that originally the Sphinx was a carved stone jackal around which was the sunken enclosure we see today. This they believe functioned as a moat filled with water channelled from the Nile via a water channel that once existed between the Valley Temple of Khafre and the enigmatic Sphinx Temple. Further water, they propose, would have been channelled as run off down a drainage ditch cut into the bedrock to be seen alongside the northern edge of the stone causeway that runs past the Sphinx enclosure and links the Second Pyramid with the aforementioned temples. In this fashion, the limestone bedrock on which Anubis was carved acted as a primordial mound or island of creation, like the raised areas in the Osireion at Abydos and the Osiris Shaft at Giza. Moreover, Robert and Olivia Temple point out that the Sphinx as Anubis is alluded to in the Pyramid Texts, which appear for the first time c. 2350 BC, as a mythical location called the Jackal Lake, linked in funerary literature with Rostau, ancient Giza.

Face of the Sphinx

The authors of The Sphinx Mystery persuasively argue that the Giza Sphinx remained as a jackal through until the Middle Kingdom of Egyptian history, which begins c. 1991 BC. They show that the style of its nemes-headdress only became fashionable in the Middle Kingdom, appearing for the first time during the reign of the king Amenemhet II, c. 1929-1895 BC, an observation first made by the German Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt (1863-1938). Thereafter carved stone andro-sphinxes were produced in profusion, some of which bear striking similarities to the face of the Giza Sphinx. More controversially, the Temples write that in their opinion no sphinxes existed before the Middle Kingdom, a conclusion compounding their conclusion that our conception of the Giza Sphinx as a lion is entirely false. The whole world has been duped into believing that the Sphinx is a lion, when in fact it is the body of a jackal.

In addition to these theories, Robert and Olivia Temple cite a large number of early references to the Sphinx, which stem from sources dating from Roman times through until the first excavations of the Sphinx in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many of these sources have not previously been translated, let alone published, and so the authors must be commended for this workmanship, which is invaluable to future research on the plateau. These ancient references to the Sphinx the authors use to demonstrate that a previously overlooked hidden chamber existed within its back, which has been missed by everyone except for them. I read The Sphinx Mystery very carefully, making copious notes on all its claims. Its claims are extraordinary, but in the end I found most if its conclusions wholly untenable. To explain why will take some time, so bear with me in this comprehensive review. I want to thank both Colin Reader and Nigel Skinner-Simpson for their invaluable contributions, as well as for checking the accuracy of my text.

Is the Sphinx a Doggie?

Let me begin by saying that Robert and Olivia Temple's proposal that the body of the Giza Sphinx was originally Anubis in the form of a recumbent jackal is extreme to say the least. Repeatedly, The Sphinx Mystery tells us that we have all been fooled into believing that the monument bears a resemblance to the body of a lion, simply because someone else told us so. There is far more evidence, they suggest, to show that the Sphinx's body resembles the long sleek shape of a recumbent jackal. Indeed, the Temples offer an outline of Anubis as a recumbent jackal superimposed on the Sphinx monument, and the resulting overlay is compelling. The authors also show pictures of carved lion statues from the Old Kingdom period, when the Giza Sphinx is conventionally thought to have been carved, and these are seen to bear only a passing resemblance to the shape of the Sphinx's elongated body. Yet various statues and reliefs, such as those among the collection of the Petrie Museum, London, show that the basic outline of lions from this period match the general style of the Sphinx's body at Giza.

Two examples of recumbent lions from the Petrie Museum showing their likeness to the general style of the Giza Sphinx (Pics: UCL/Petrie Museum).

Suggesting that andro-sphinxes never existed in Egypt prior to the Middle Kingdom makes the Temples' theory even more persuasive. However, it is simply not true, as can be seen from an account given by Dr Selim Hassan (1893-1961) in his Excavations at Giza, vol. 8, page 162. Here he says:

In addition to this single example of an andro-sphinx, found in connection with Khafre's funerary complex, we know that recumbent lion statues from the Old Kingdom were being being remodelled into andro-sphinxes. A prime example is the one found at Abu Rawash (also spelt Abu Roash), a pyramid field about 4 miles (7 kms) north of Giza. Here once existed a pyramid structure built for the pharaoh Djedefre, a son of Khufu, who ruled c. 2573-2550 BC, immediately prior to Khafre, the builder of Giza's Second Pyramid. A French-Swiss team headed by Emile Chassinat (1868-1948) unearthed a limestone sphinx sporting a nemes-headdress and seemingly female face. Controversy surrounds its age, with most Egyptologists willing to accept that it dates from the Old Kingdom period. Some believe that the statue is contemporary to Djedefre's reign, and actually shows the head of his wife Hetepheres II.

Views of the Sphinx from the north and south respectively, taken in April 2009 by Andrew Collins.

This, however, is mere speculation, as is its age. Some Egyptologists propose that it is the oldest known representation of an andro-sphinx, and might even have inspired the Giza Sphinx. This, of course, is generally thought to have been carved by Khafre, Djedefre's younger brother (from who's funerary complex came the sphinx found by Selim Hassan in 1934-35), or by Djedefre himself, as part of a king's commitment to complete his father's funerary complex upon his death (cartouches bearing Djedefre's name have been found in Khufu's excavated boat pit at Giza). Certainly, there is some resemblance between the body of the Abu Rawash sphinx and its colossal counterpart at Giza.

What this means is that at some stage in dynastic history, arguably by the end of the Old Kingdom, statues of recumbent lions were being sequestered in order to make them into andro-sphinxes with the heads of royal figures.

Reader points out also that the Sphinx's body does indeed conform with recumbent lion statues from the Predynastic period, c. 3500-3200 BC, right through until the Old Kingdom period, c. 2700-2137 BC. Moreover, he suggests that lions featured in religious beliefs associated with Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid. For instance, as recently as 2001 a Japanese team working at Saqqara unearthed fragments of a ceramic recumbent lion (since restored) among a cache of mostly sixth dynasty objects deposited in a Middle Kingdom tomb.

Thus extending this influence to the presence on the plateau at Giza of the Sphinx is not unreasonable, even though Reader is of the opinion that as a recumbent lion it belongs to an age earlier than Khufu and his contemporaries, most probably the Early Dynastic period, c. 3100-2700 BC (1).

The Tomb Chapel of Khufu-khaf

The Temples' best evidence for the Giza Sphinx being a representation of Anubis are what he describes as "super-sized" reliefs of the god as a recumbent jackal seen in Fourth Dynasty tomb chapels at Giza, the most blatant being that of Khufu-khaf I (also written Khaf-Khufu I), a son of Khufu, found in a mastaba tomb (# 7140) located in the pyramid field's eastern cemetery. Here two such reliefs form part of a standard offering formula inscribed on the walls of funerary chapels and asking for a safe passage into the afterlife for the deceased. This is done in the name of Anubis in his role as "foremost of the necropolis", that is as the guardian of the entrance in the west to the land of the dead. The images are huge in comparison to the hieroglyphs around them, and in the tomb of Khufu-khaf super-sized Anubis reliefs appear both on the north wall and south wall of the east-west orientated entrance corridor. They are the first images seen on entering the tomb, and both examples face east, as if guarding the western entrance to the land of the dead. Their orientation mimics that of the Giza Sphinx, located in a dip around 300 meters to the south of Khufu-khaf's tomb chapel. Both examples, as well as another super-sized Anubis in another Fourth Dynasty tomb chapel at Giza referred to by Robert and Olivia Temple, sport nemes-headresses, something usually only reserved for anthropomorphic representations of Anubis. Each animal also has a long slim body, with an extended tail that drops vertically towards the floor.

The presence of these super-sized Anubises in tomb chapels belonging to Egypt's Fourth Dynasty has allowed the authors of The Sphinx Mystery to conclude that the Sphinx also was a form of Anubis, guarding the western entrance to the land of the dead - its sleek body matching those of the contemporary reliefs. This is a bold and compelling theory. However, the main drawback in its acceptance is the artistic style of the Sphinx monument. Even though it does possess a long slim body, its tail curls around the right side of the rump, across the base of the right hind leg, before rising up to finish on the beast's hindquarters. This is a style characteristic of lion statues from Predynastic times onwards, including the examples cited above from Abu Rawash and Saqqara.

I also examined all Anubis statues in the Egyptian museum, Cairo, looking for statues with curved tails over the hindquarters, the usual manner of design was to manufacture them with straight, detachable tails that drop vertically (the statues were meant originally to stand on small bench-like shrines, as in the much larger example famously found in Tutankhamun's tomb). Many of these tails, as well as their box shrines, are now missing from surviving statues, leaving only a square hole where the tail had once been attached to the body.

The most curious fact about the carved Anubis relief on the north wall of the entrance to Khufu-khaf's tomb chapel is that its muzzle is far too long and slim to be that of a normal jackal. The fact that its ears are also now simply stumps, most obviously through degradation of the relief, makes its appearance, complete with nemes-headdress, that much stranger.

EXAMINING THE LIKENESS BETWEEN THE SPHINX AND THE JACKAL-GOD ANUBIS Pic credit: Andrew Collins/Rodney Hale If the Sphinx was a form of Anubis, then the presence of supersized reliefs of the god in canine form within the tomb of Khufu-khaf I (G7140), inside his tomb chapel in Giza's eastern cemetery, should support the contention that they are representations of the imposing monument just 300 meters to the south. Indeed, the reliefs, according to Robert and Olivia Temple in The Sphinx Mystery, were most likely inspired by the nearby presence of the Sphinx, or perhaps vice versa. So British engineer Rodney Hale overlaid an image of Anubis as the jackal to see whether this surmize might be correct. Yet the resulting overlay shows clearly that if the Sphinx had been a canine then it was certainly not inspired by contemporary Old Kingdom depictions of Anubis in the form of a recumbent jackal. The head of the Sphinx is too large to fit that of the jackal. Decreasing the size of the Sphinx's head to fit the match better would severely shorten, pro-rata, the length of the monument against that of the jackal. Pics credit: Andrew Collins/Rodney Hale When you compare the Sphinx profile against the super-sized Anubis relief on the south side of the entrance passage into the tomb chapel of Khufu-khaf we can see that for the Sphinx head to have been recarved from a jackal's head, with a suitable pro-rata body, it would mean that the jackal's head and back would have far exceeded the size of the monument. Deceasing the size of the jackal would have meant the jackal's body being far out of proportion to the Sphinx's body. Pics: Robert and Olivia Temple's own overlay created for The Sphinx Mystery and seen on the book's cover makes the comparison between Anubis and the Sphinx almost exact. However, in order to achieve this match, the body length of the jackal has had to be shortened considerably (see left). Indeed, what they show is a shortened body more like that of a puppy. Surely if the Sphinx did represent Anubis then it would resemble the likeness of at least one representation of the jackal found on the plateau. However, as the below collection of Old Kingdom jackal images from the plateau show, none of them look anything like the Giza Sphinx. One, of course, shows the so-called Set animal, the totem of the god Set, which might also be compared against the Sphinx profile (All pictures taken in April 2009 by Andrew Collins and collected together by Rodney Hale. Copyright: Andrew Collins/Rodney Hale).

Obscure Origins of the Sphinx

One of the reasons why Robert and Olivia Temple are able, quite easily, to propose that the Sphinx was originally a jackal, and not a lion, is that there are no obvious mentions of the monument in any inscription, either on the plateau, or elsewhere, until the commencement of the New Kingdom, c. 1575 BC. How could such a magnificent structure have gone unmentioned for at least a thousand years, if not longer? It just doesn't make good sense. The most likely answer is that it is mentioned, although not in any obviously recognizable form, cue the Temples' proposal that it is mentioned, but only in its guise as Anubis. Other writers, including Robert Bauval and myself, have argued that the Sphinx is mentioned in ancient Egyptian texts under the name Horakhty, a form of the hawk or hawk-headed god signifying the sun on the horizon. Significantly, British Egyptologist Richard Wilkinson has pointed out that Horakhty could take the form of a cosmic lion. This makes sense since as early as the reign of the New Kingdom king Amenhotep I, c. 1525 BC, the Sphinx was addressed as Re-horakhty, the sun as Horakhty, as well as Horemakhet, a name for Horus as the sun on the horizon applied specifically to the Giza monument. Horakhty was also associated with the Heliopolitan creator god Atum as Re-horakhty-atum, another name to which the Giza Sphinx was addressed during the New Kingdom period.

The body of the Sphinx may not have been visible during the reign of Amenhotep I, since the so-called Dream Stela, erected between the paws of the Sphinx during the reign of Thutmosis IV, c. 1413-1405 BC, suggests that sand had covered the monument until this time. If this is correct (and my colleague Chris Ogilvie Herald argues against the Sphinx enclosure being engulfed with sand until very late on in dynastic times), then the only thing that can have led to the Sphinx being identified with Re-horakhty, which could take the form of a cosmic lion, as early as the reign of Amenhotep I is that there was an existing tradition linking the monument with a god in the form of a lion. Adding to the mystery is that during the New Kingdom period the Sphinx was being addressed in inscriptions as Hauron (also written Horon, Chauron or Hwron), the name of a chthonic or underworld deity of Syro-Canaanite origin. Dr Selim Hassan, the Director of Excavations on behalf of the American University in Cairo, who excavated the Sphinx area 1936-37 and continued his work in the rock-cut tombs in the enclosure walls in 1937-38, wrote that the name Hauron was the origin of the monument's Arab name of Abou-l Hwl, "Father of Terror". The word hwl is merely a corruption of Hwron, which itself derives from the Semitic root hor meaning the bottom of a well, or "hole". The abou element Hassan saw as a corruption of the ancient Egyptian bw, meaning "place", suggesting bw-hwron, the "place of the god Hauron".

Canaanite inscriptions mention Hauron being sent into the "chamber of darkness", a form of underworld, to sort out demons, including wolves, encroaching on this world. More significantly, Hauron was envisioned as a form of winged lion, or cherubim, the reason why New Kingdom reliefs of the Giza Sphinx occasionally show its body covered in feathers. Thus it seems certain that Syrian and Canaanite settlers, most obviously during the Hyksos period, c. 1625-1575 BC, came to Giza and identified the Sphinx with their own winged lion Hauron, a connection that not only stuck but was acknowledged in numerous royal inscriptions from the New Kingdom period.

Further east, among the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, Hauron was identified with a deity called Nimru, which means "panther". In Akkado-Sumerian texts Nimru
was identified with a sky-figure in the form of a panther-griffin (i.e. half feline/half eagle) called UD.KA.DUH.A, made up of stars from the constellations of Cygnus and Cepheus.

So we can see that from the New Kingdom onwards the Giza Sphinx was seen as the personification of feline god forms both of Egyptian and Canaanite origin. Surely, if the monument had started its existence as a canine, then some semblance of this cult would have lingered at Giza, and found its way into inscriptions at the commencement of the New Kingdom. Yet this was simply not the case. All the indications are that the Sphinx at Giza was generally identified as a lion, even at times when only its head would have been visible above the desert sands.

Whose Face is it Anyway?

The authors of The Sphinx Mystery go against the idea that the face of the Sphinx is that of Khafre, the builder of the Second Pyramid, its usual designated identity according to Egyptologists, through the most flimsiest evidence (contextual relationship to the Second Pyramid and its funerary complex, and the first syllable of the name Khafre found in a damaged line at the base of the Dream Stela). The Temples also go against more recent proposals by Egyptologists such as Rainer Stadelman and Vassel Dobrev, suggesting that the Sphinx was carved during the reign of either Khufu or his son Djedefre. To Robert and Olivia Temple the face of the Sphinx is that of the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhet II, who reigned c. 1929-1895 BC. He came across the exposed head of the now damaged jackal, remodelled it in the image of himself, and cleared away the sand that clogged its body.

The Temples would argue, presumably, that they are still dogs, or that the Sphinx was now considered a lion, but such ideas seem nonsensical, especially since we know that lion statues were being sequestered to be remodelled as andro-sphinxes from the Old Kingdom onwards. On top of this, geologist Colin Reader has uncovered evidence that the artistic style of the stripes on the interior of the Sphinx's nemes-headdress was in use during the reign of Menkaure, the builder of the Third Pyramid, c. 2525 BC. He is writing a paper on this subject, so I will not pre-empt his work in this respect. So although it cannot be ruled out that the Sphinx's familiar head was not carved in the Middle Kingdom, it is more likely older than this time.

Anubis as Guardian of Rostau

Giza's ancient name was Rostau (also translated as Re-stew or Rose-tau), which means the "mouth of the passages", a reference to the entrance to the underworld realm known as the duat in ancient Egyptian literature. Robert and Olivia Temple state that Anubis guarded the western entrance to the land of the dead, synonymous also with the concept of the duat-underworld. As such Anubis was the obvious choice as a guardian for the Giza plateau, long seen as a physical representation of the duat-underworld, and an entrance to the westerly placed land of the dead. This seems confirmed by the fact that Anubis is alluded to in connection with Rostau in both the Pyramid Texts, which date to c. 2350 BC.

However, as the Temples admit themselves, the same role of guardian to the duat-underworld was held by a lion (ru), or double lion (ruti), called also the Aker (or Akeru in plural), a form of earth-god. Many writers have identified the Sphinx as one of the two lions guarding the double horizon in ancient Egyptian myth and legend. It therefore seems likely that in addition to being identified with lion deities such as Horakhty, Hor-em-akhet and Hauron, the Great Sphinx was seen also as one of the Aker, or Ruti, lions which stood at the entrance and exit to the underworld. Indeed, this seems, as we saw above, to have been the role of the god Hauron in Syro-Canaanite tradition.

Lastly, if the Sphinx had been a jackal deity, then there should be evidence of votive offerings to a dog deity found at Giza, when clearly there are none. Plus there is no surviving folklore suggesting that it was ever a dog or jackal, nothing.

Sphinx Enclosure as a Moat

Robert and Olivia Temple's proposal that the Sphinx enclosure was once a moat filled with water, which acted as a symbolic island of creation, is a fascinating idea. This said, it is lacking in any corroborative evidence. Firstly, Dr Selim Hassan excavated the Sphinx enclosure down to the bedrock and found no obvious evidence of sedimentary deposits, created either by decaying organic life or alluvial sludge, which will have accumulated if the Sphinx enclosure had been filled with water during Old Kingdom times.
Secondly, as has been pointed out to me by geologist Colin Reader, the bedrock on the east side of the Sphinx Temple and Valley Temple of Khafre, between which the Temples propose was a water channel through which Nile water could have passed, is perhaps as much as 4 meters lower than the base of the Sphinx enclosure. This means that the water would have needed to be channelled up hill through, presumably, a series of sluice gates, the existence of which eludes us. Certainly, a quay, probably served by a canal linked to a tributary of the nearby Nile, was located immediately east of the Valley Temple, but this was most probably built to enable the pharaoh's funerary barge to reach its final destination, and to supply building materials, including Turah limestone and Aswan granite, for use in the construction of Khafre's funerary complex. There is no evidence that this canal served to supply water to the Sphinx enclosure.

Beyond this there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the ritual usage or identity of the Sphinx during the Pyramid age. In addition to this, the monument is likely to have spent long periods of time up to its neck in sand, a constant problem that would have dogged any period of dynastic history after the onset of desiccation leading to the creation of the Libyan desert sometime during the Pyramid age.

Thirdly, the legs and paws of the Sphinx are carved out of the very base of the Sphinx enclosure, meaning that if water did fill its enclosure then these would have been quickly submerged. This seems a peculiar design feature if the Sphinx was to have acted as the guardian of a primeval island of creation on which it supposedly rested. Not only would its front legs, paws, and even parts of the tail, have been invisible underwater, but it does not sit on an island-like area in the first place. This means that there would not have been any "Jackal Island", just a half-drowned dog.

Finally, Colin Reader proposes that the drainage channel which Robert and Olivia Temple suggest carried additional water into the Sphinx enclosure from higher up the plateau can only be traced for a distance of around 35 meters. It is cut out of the bedrock on the north side of the stone causeway linking the Second Pyramid to the Sphinx, but Reader has been unable to find it goes any further. It does not appear to be present where a tunnel has been cut through the causeway higher up the plateau (the one which leads to the entrance of the so-called Osiris shaft).

The Chamber That Never Was

Another massive claim by the authors of The Sphinx Mystery is that present within the back of the Giza Sphinx is a secret or "hidden" chamber, explored for the first time in 1817 by the redoubtable Italian explorer and former sea-captain Giovanni Battista Caviglia (1770-1845), the first person to properly clear away the sand that had engulfed the monument since Roman times. Robert Temple suggests that this chamber was subsequently hushed up by the Italian, since it was never again picked up on either by Egyptologists or revisionist writers, until he and his wife realized its existence and huge significance. In this respect, the Temples ask "... how do we know that Caviglia really entered the chamber beneath the Sphinx". The Sphinx chamber alluded to here is one said to exist at the bottom of a vertical shaft, which was entered from on top of the Sphinx near the hindquarters.

In answer to the question posed, the Temples cite a story dating from 1855 attributed to the French Egyptologist Auguste Mariette (1821-1881), and reported in a French periodical at the time, which speaks of the discovery of a plan of two chambers found "behind" the Sphinx in Caviglia's papers. The chambers, it says, were purported to contain hieroglyphic texts. The article also mentions the British explorer Samuel Birch (1813-1885), an Egyptologist working with the British Museum, who had the thought that if the chambers could be rediscovered the inscriptions might throw light on the origins of the Sphinx. It also says that Mariette was of the opinion that the vertical shaft accessed via the back of the Sphinx, at the bottom of which was a roughly hewn room, was in actuality a natural fissure reshaped by man (and visible until finally filled in with concrete by the French Egyptologist Émile Baraize after he began excavating the Sphinx and its enclosure in 1926).

With all this in mind the Temples state, in connection with the above article, that "Caviglia is said to have done plans of two chambers beneath (i.e. inside) the Sphinx and we must suppose that the second one was the hollow at the bottom of the rump tunnel, since Mariette speaks of only one chamber at the bottom of the vertical shaft." From this they conclude that since there are no hieroglyphic inscriptions in the small, hollowed-out tunnel accessed via the Sphinx's rump, then they must have been inscribed on the walls of the chamber at the bottom of the aforementioned vertical shaft in the Sphinx's back. Initially, this might seem a logical conclusion, which if correct would mean that a "hidden chamber" in the Sphinx's back contained hieroglyphic inscriptions, a revelation that might indeed have thrown light not just on the monument's former identity, but also any religious practices that might have gone on in its dark depths. Backing up the significance of this previous unknown chamber is the fact that the Temples cite the fact that Mariette found at its base certain fragments of wood, which might easily have belonged to a coffin from a burial.

There is a huge problem, however, in accepting any of this as fact. Firstly, the shaft in the back of the Sphinx was, as Mariette noted himself, simply a natural fissure widened at its base by human hands (and possibly used to contain a burial). More crucially, the idea that this compartment was a "hidden chamber" secretly entered by Caviglia in 1817 who found here hieroglyphic inscriptions, and later hushed up the whole episode as part of some kind of archaeological conspiracy is simply pie in the sky.
Let me explain, courtesy of some diligent research by my friend and colleague Nigel Skinner-Simpson, an independent researcher of Egyptology who specializes in past and present excavations at Giza. The aforementioned French article quoted by the Temples in The Sphinx Mystery makes reference to chambers "behind" the Sphinx, yet on page 98 of their book "behind" becomes "beneath". So was the chamber containing hieroglyphs "behind" the carved monument, or "beneath" it, i.e. inside it? There is one hell of a difference here, leading to enormous possibilities of ambiguity.

The answer lies in an article not quoted by the authors of The Sphinx Mystery. It was penned by Samuel Birch - the same Birch mentioned in Temple's quoted article - and is entitled "Excavations Around The Sphinx". It is found in The Museum Of Classical Antiquities (vol. 2), a short-lived quarterly journal published between 1851 and 1853. The main illustration accompanying the paper is entitled "Plan of Discoveries By Captn. Caviglia, Behind And In The Neighbourhood Of The Great Sphinx", and shows: "Wells or Shafts descending from three upper chambers to five lower chambers" - these shafts and other features being located in the enclosure wall north-west of the rear of the Sphinx. Birch says in connection with these subterranean shafts that "Their object (i.e. purpose), indeed, is unintelligible without the inscriptions which were found in them" by Captn. Caviglia, showing that they are the same ones alluded to by Birch in the French article quoted by the authors of The Sphinx Mystery, which was published just two years later in 1855. Thus it would appear that the chambers containing the hieroglyphs alluded to in the French article were located within shafts behind the Sphinx, and not beneath it. So there was no hidden chamber entered by Caviglia inside the Sphinx, no hieroglyphic inscriptions within it, no deliberate concealment of the same and, finally, no connection with the Frenchman Baraize filling in the natural fissure and hollowed out area in the back of the Sphinx during the 1920s. Sorry, but these are the facts - not the fact that everyone, except for the Temples, has overlooked the existence of a hitherto unknown secret chamber in the Sphinx.

Despite the many reservations I have about the nature of the theories proposed in The Sphinx Mystery, I would still recommend it, not only for it bold attempts to change the face of alternative research at Giza, but also for the numerous, previously unknown accounts of the Sphinx from Roman times through to the present day.

Notes: 1. Reader, Colin, "Giza Before the Fourth Dynasty", Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF) 9 (2002), pp. 5-21.

RETURN TO INDEX