New archeological discovery in Egypt 2012

The discovery of a new Monarch burial in Dayr al-Barshā
During its 2012 spring campaign, the archaeological mission of Leuven University in Dayr al-Barshā, directed by Harco Willems, has discovered an important burial dating back to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (approx. 2040 B.C.). Although the burial has been robbed at least twice, and has suffered extensive damage, a large amount of objects were still found in their original position, providing unique information on the scenario of the funerary ritual. The tomb must have belonged to a monarch (i.e. a provincial governor) or to a person belonging to the close family of a monarch. It is for the first time in over a century that a relatively well preserved burial of this kind has been found.
The discovery was made in the tomb of the monarch Ahanakht I, who was the first Middle Kingdom governor of the Hare Nome (Nome = province). This tomb is well known, as it has been investigated already in 1891-1892, and was thoroughly excavated by the American archaeologist George Andrew Reisner in 1915. Reisner's work was crowned by the discovery of a nearly intact monarch burial in a neighbouring tomb. The beautiful remains from this latter tomb are world famous.
However, Reisner did not finish the excavation of the southwestern burial shaft in Aha-nakht's tomb. His diary makes clear that the American archaeologist was under the impress-sion that this shaft had been robbed only a short while before he arrived on the scene. For this reason, he stopped the excavation. This has proved to be a rare chance, as Reisner has thoroughly emptied all other tombs in the area. Therefore, the Leuven mission had in the previous ten years only excavated and documented tombs that had already been thoroughly emptied before, and there is no chance that other tombs of this kind may still be discovered elsewhere.
The excavation made clear that Reisner's assessment about tomb robbing was correct. Almost down to the bottom of the 6 m deep burial shaft, the archaeologists found disturbed material (although including some important reliefs from the decoration of the tomb), which included cigarette stumps and newspaper fragments dating back to the early 20th century. There were also numerous remains of tomb equipment, but it was not clear whether it came from this tomb, and all of it was much damaged. Moreover the burial chamber was filled to the roof with rocks, something that can only be explained by assuming that robbers threw these stones deliberately into the chamber. In the process, much of the wooden tomb equipment was crushed. Yet, many funerary gifts had not been noticed by the tomb robbers.
It seems that the tomb was robbed twice. The first robbing may already have taken place in antiquity. At that time, the robbers seem to have been interested mostly on precious mate-rials. Numerous pieces of gold leaf show that the coffins, and probably other objects, had been covered by this material. After this first looting event, the tomb seems to have been

The Hieroglyphic Inscription Above the Great Pyramid's Entrance

Though it is often reported that the Great Pyramid of Giza is bereft of any hieroglyphic inscription save for some quarry marks on inside surfaces, and also that the last hieroglyphics in Egypt were inscribed at Philae in AD 394, both of these statements were made somewhat inaccurate in the middle of the 19th century.
Karl Richard Lepsius, born in 1810 in Naumburg (Saale), Germany, began studying Egyptology after completing his European archaeology doctorate in 1833. He studied in Paris, using Champollion's newly published grammar. By 1837 he had a good working knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language. During the years 1842-1845, Lepsius led an expedition of Prussian scholars to Egypt, Nubia, and Sinai to record monuments and collect antiquities. Architects and draftsmen described and sketched tombs, temples, and other monuments in the Nile Valley and, with the cooperation of Muhammed Ali, about 15,000 artifacts were taken to Berlin. The resulting work, the twelve-volume Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, made Lepsius a dominating figure in Egyptology. In 1855 he became a Scientific Director of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, and in 1865 he was appointed its Director. Lepsius died in 1884.
While in Egypt, the expedition thought appropriate to honor the birthday of Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm IV, patron of the project, by adding a unique set of graffiti to one of the western gables above the original entrance of the pyramid.

In a letter dated 17 January 1843, Lepsius himself provided the translation:

Thus speak the servants of the King, whose name is The Sun and Rock of Prussia, Lepsius the scribe, Erbkam the architect, the Brothers Weidenbach the painters, Frey the painter, Franke the molder, Bonomi the sculptor, Wild the architect: All hail to the Eagle, The Protector of the Cross, to the King, The Sun and Rock of Prussia, to the Sun of the Sun, who freed his native country, Friedrich Wilhelm the Fourth, the Loving Father, the Father of his Country, the Gracious One, the Favorite of Wisdom and History, the Guardian of the Rhine, whom Germany has chosen, the Dispenser of Life. May the Most high God grant the King and his wife, the Queen Elizabeth, the Rich in Life, the Loving Mother, the Mother of the Country, the Gracious One, an ever vibrant and long life on earth and a blessed place in heaven for eternity. In the year of our Savior, 1842, in the tenth month, on the fifteenth day, on the forty-seventh birthday of his Majesty, on the Pyramid of King Cheops; in the third year, in the fifth month, on the ninth day of the reign of his Majesty; in the year 3164 from the commencement of the Sothis period under the King Menepthes.

The Great Sphinx continues to offer its riddles. Some say that the Sphinx is a lot older than Egyptologists generally believe

The Great Sphinx on the Giza Plateau was not built, but rather carved from the limestone bedrock. Conventional techniques of dating the Sphinx have included analysis of its stylistic features, the stratigraphy of artifacts excavated, and the record of extant historical documentation.
In my opinion, the most compelling evidence that the Sphinx dates to the time of Khafre is found in the layout of the Sphinx enclosure (see diagram below). If we assume that the Sphinx was carved in Pre-Dynastic times, then we might well wonder why the southern wall of the enclosure was carved at an angle. Why wasn't it squared with the axis of the Sphinx as were the other walls? Further, if it is assumed that the southern wall was capriciously carved at the angle we find it, then isn't it a bit too much to expect that thousands of years later, after the construction of tombs and pyramids on the surrounding necropolis, Khafre was able to build his pyramid and his valley temple, and then have the angle of the causeway connecting the two match exactly the angle of the southern wall of the enclosure? This would have been quite a providential coincidence indeed. One might counter that perhaps the southern wall of the enclosure was at first parallel with the axis of the Sphinx and then later modified by Khafre to accommodate his causeway. But in that case, the southern wall wouldn't show the alleged "ancient" erosion pattern (see photograph below), nor would the allegedly Pre-Dynastic Sphinx Temple be off-center in relation to the Sphinx but centered in relation to the "modified" southern wall.

Plan of Khafre's causeway and the Sphinx enclosure.

Recent controversy has resulted primarily from a geological examination of the monument. The darling of the old-Sphinx theorists remains Dr. Robert M. Schoch, associate professor of science and mathematics at the College of General Studies at Boston University. He was contacted in 1989 by John Anthony West, who needed a geologist to test his theory that the Sphinx dates to 10,500 BC or earlier. Schoch visited Egypt in 1990 and again in 1991 and came to agree with West that, based on the geological evidence, the Sphinx dates to well before the Fourth Dynasty, though not as early as West would have it. Schoch detailed his reasoning in his book Voices of the Rocks (Harmony Books, 1999), and it is from this book that I shall quote his arguments.
According to Schoch, proof that both the Sphinx Temple and Khafre's Valley Temple predate the Fourth Dynasty is found in the granite blocks (below misnamed "ashlars") that were used to face the large limestone blocks:

The limestone blocks cut from the Sphinx enclosure showed the uneven surface expected from long-term weathering. The granite ashlars had actually been shaped to fit these undulating surfaces. [pp. 36-37]

He reasoned that because the Egyptians would not use weathered limestone to build the temples, and because the granite facing was applied in the Fourth Dynasty to the weathered limestone, then "the limestone predated the granite by a considerable period." [p. 37] There are a few problems with this reasoning. First of all, the Egyptians did not ordinarily finish granite stones to a smooth surface on the side that would not show. Such detailing would be unnecessary, and the labor involved would have been wasteful. In a similar vein, it seems extremely unlikely that the harder granite stone would be cut to fit the limestone. Would not the reverse be more logical, the softer limestone cut to accommodate the granite? Indeed, the limestone core blocks of Khafre's Valley Temple were smoothed to allow a flush fit of the granite casing. Core material was not finished to perfection, nor was it made of the finest materials, as it would be hidden by the casing. It must also be remembered that the granite facing stones were refitted in modern restorations, a factor that further clouds the situation as it exists today.
Schoch saw two distinct weathering processes at the Sphinx enclosure: wind and rain erosion. He wrote:

The Sphinx showed some wind erosion, particularly on the head and upper back, which sit above the ground level of the plateau. However, the Sphinx also displayed obvious and extensive wear from precipitation. Rock worn away by rain has an undulating surface, often displaying distinct vertical crevices. This kind of erosion is well developed and prominent on the body of the Sphinx and within the Sphinx enclosure, where the weathering reaches from over three feet to more than six feet deep below the surface. Even though certain of the Giza structures are built from the same kind of limestone as the Sphinx, none of them show the same degree of precipitation-induced weathering. [p. 39]

Sphinx limestone strata.

What Schoch fails to mention is that the quality of the limestone in the area of the Sphinx varies. The Sphinx is carved out of limestone bedrock containing three strata: Members I, II, and III. Member I is very hard and comprises the lower portion of the Sphinx. The head of the Sphinx is carved from Member III which is also hard (it was quarried for the core blocks of the Giza pyramids). The middle stratum, Member II, is made up of poorly consolidated limestone that is easily erodable. The quality of the limestone is so poor that the body of the Sphinx had eroded significantly by the time of the New Kingdom, and has continued to erode since. Schoch is vague about the certain "Giza structures" cited above, but elsewhere he has mentioned that the Tomb of Debehen shows no such erosion though it was supposedly contemporary to the Sphinx. Unfortunately, Schoch ignores the fact that the tomb lies some 75-141 feet higher on the Giza Plateau and is carved from the more durable Member III limestone. More recently (in KMT 5:2, 6), Schoch uses the rock-cut tombs of the eastern escarpment as a similar example. Again, though the tombs may be at a like elevation, they are cut from a different layer of limestone and thus bear no valid comparison with the limestone of the Sphinx enclosure.

Giza limestone strata.

Schoch gives further evidence for his thesis:

Interesting corroborative evidence come from the Saqqara Plateau, located about ten miles from Giza. At Saqqara, a number of fragile mudbrick tombs called mastabas are dated indisputably to the First and Second Dynasties, several hundred years earlier than the Sphinx's putative 2500 B.C. origin. None of these tombs bears the marks of the kind of rain-caused weathering seen on the Sphinx and the Sphinx enclosure. In fact, the mastabas were preserved by being buried in dry, windswept sand. [p. 39]

Most of the mudbrick tombs of Saqqara had indeed weathered away save those portions that were preserved under the fallen debris of the superstructure. The "preserved" mastabas were only exposed in the last century, and that is the very reason why there were preserved. Also, while the Sphinx enclosure lies at the drainage point of much of the Giza necropolis, the tombs at Saqqara are high on the desert plateau and thus in a drier place regardless of rainfall.
Schoch observed that the Sphinx enclosure is weathered unevenly:

The north, south, and east floors of the trench surrounding the east-facing Sphinx are weathered to a depth of six to eight feet below the level of the enclosure's currently exposed surface. On the monument's western end, the Sphinx's rump, the weathering extends to only four feet. [p. 40]

Schoch concludes that the Sphinx was carved in two stages: the Sphinx's head and main body in the first stage, and the Sphinx's back end in the second stage (possibly as a part of Khafre's reconstruction). James Harrell, a professor of Geology at the University of Toledo, Ohio, offers another reason for the uneven weathering: the quality of rock differs from the west to the east as the limestone strata dips.
In a personal correspondence, Lambert Dolphin, a geophysicist who has worked within the Sphinx enclosure, addressed the question:

The work of Schoch and West on the Sphinx is highly flawed. For one thing they ignored the severe local atmospheric industrial pollution in the last century which has severely damaged the Giza monuments and fast, too. This is well known by the Egyptologists. I won't get in to that story, you probably are up to date on their work and the many thorough refutations from well-qualified people.

Southern wall of the Sphinx enclosure.

The walls of the Sphinx enclosure are badly weathered, and this is cited by Schoch and West as supportive of their "old-Sphinx" theory. Though the vertical fissures appear to have been the result of water, other factors may have had an influence in their formation. There may have been jointing in the parent material that may have been opened by the effects of wind-borne sand particles and temperature differentials. It could also have been that carving techniques, the use of mallets and wedges, resulted in uneven stress being applied along the cut face resulting in cracking that was augmented by both wind and water erosion. Even while sand covered the bulk of the Sphinx, following heavy rain or flooding (which still occurs today) the wet sand might well have accelerated weathering. Salt crystal exfoliation may have also played a part (for a more detailed explanation, see geologist August Matthusen's rebuttal to the "old-Sphinx" theory). Paul Jordan's excellent book, Riddles of the Sphinx (New York University Press, 1998) offers a good academic overview of the controversy (pp. 145-161).

Sphinx Passages

There are several holes and passages in the Great Sphinx at Giza. Some are of known origin but others are not.
There is a hole on the back of the Sphinx, about 4 feet behind the head. It was made by Howard Vyse in the 1840s and has been dubbed Perring's Hole after his engineer. Seeking chambers, Vyse bored a hole 27 feet deep but the drill rod became stuck. He tried using gunpowder to remove the rod, but gave up so as not to do further damage to the Sphinx. The cavity Vyse created was cleared in 1978 by Zahi Hawass, and inside it he found a part of the Sphinx's headdress.
Later, in the 1850s, August Mariette cleared out a shaft on the Sphinx's back, which he realized was nothing more than a widening in a natural fissure. (He also found the peculiar masonry "boxes" against the body of the monument).
In 1923, Department of Antiquities director Lacau and engineer Emile Baraize began an 11 year excavation of the Sphinx area. In December 1925 a photograph was made by the team showing the area of the large masonry box on the south side of the Sphinx. Loose stones can be seen, stones cut for repairs, but in the side of the Sphinx body a large gaping entrance, or perhaps grotto is visible. It was covered up in the restoration. Further conservation included lining the largest fissure on the Sphinx's back (some 6 feet wide) with limestone blocks and covering the resulting shaft with an iron trap door.
Baraize also paved with cement a deep hole on the top of the Sphinx's head. The hole measures approximately 5 feet square and nearly 6 feet deep. An iron trap door was fitted to the mouth of the hole. It has been theorized that the hole, began as a means for affixing a headdress to the sphinx in the manner of the New Kingdom (see photo below), was later deepened in search of hidden chambers.

Tutankhamun's calcite sphinx, Luxor Museum.

In 1980, Zahi Hawass uncovered a passage beneath the casing stones leading under the Sphinx (see photo below). He was informed of the passage by two elderly workers who had worked with Baraize (the tunnel had not been documented and had nearly been forgotten). The passage is on the north side near the tail and has two parts at right angles to each other. One descends for 13 feet, terminating in a dead end. The upper part runs for about the same length and ends at a small niche (about 3 feet wide and 6 feet high). Items found among the limestone chips and sand included bits of charcoal, small ceramic particles and other pottery shards, an alabaster chip, a granite chip, part of a modern water jug, a piece of tin foil, another fragment of red granite, and two old but modern leather shoes. It is possible that the passage was made by Vyse, who had mentioned in his journal that he had bored "near the shoulder, and near the tail," without providing further details.

Passage at rear of Sphinx
(bottom left of center).

There is an iron trap door fitted to the ground within the Sphinx's paws, between the Thutmose IV Stela and the chest of the Sphinx. This is not a passage but rather a somewhat rectangular pit that was covered with a cement roof and iron beam then sealed with a trap door by Baraize as a part of his restoration efforts in the 1920s.
There is another shaft in the Sphinx enclosure but not connected with the Sphinx itself. The so-called Keystone Shaft is in the floor of the enclosure under the north ledge of the wall, just opposite the north hind paw. The passage measures about 4.5 feet by 3.5 feet and is just over 6 feet deep. A large piece of basalt, with one side finished smooth, was found inside the shaft. It is likely that the passage was meant to be a tomb but was never completed.

The Masonry Boxes of the Great Sphinx

One aspect of the Great Sphinx at Giza that has somehow been overlooked by "fringe" authors is the presence of four odd masonry boxes that are situated against the body of the Sphinx at floor level, two on the north side and two on the south.

Masonry "boxes" (in red).

August Mariette uncovered the boxes while clearing the sand around the Sphinx in the 1850s. At that time, there were five boxes, but one on the north side has since disappeared. The arrangement of the boxes is asymmetrical and seems to make little sense. What was their purpose?
Mariette first thought they served as buttresses to support the slope of the masonry on the body of the Sphinx. But he changed his mind when he found pieces of a colossal statue of Osiris that was, he wrote, composed of separate blocks. A travel writer in 1856 counted the blocks: there were 28 (Laorty-Hadji, L'Egypte, p. 382). The fragments included a badly worn face and a white crown made of limestone.

Limestone crown, 1997.

Based on this evidence, Mariette concluded that the boxes had served as bases or pedestals for large cult statues. Examination of the masonry indicates that the boxes were constructed in the 18th Dynasty at the latest (during Phase 1 reconstruction), but probably earlier.

Dimensions of the Boxes (in feet).

Description	Width (E-W)	Length (N-S)	Height
N Large Box	13.1	11.2	8.9
N Small Box	8.0	7.5	5.7
S Large Box	17.3	13.1	10.8
S Small Box	6.2	7.9	4.7*

*Top course of stones missing.

Mark Lehner made a theoretical reconstruction of the Osiride statue in his 1991 Yale University doctorate dissertation, Archaeology of an image: The Great Sphinx of Giza. According to Lehner,

The double crown, when complete would have been about 1.6 m. [5.2 feet] tall and about 1 m. [3.3'] long (front to back). This would be proportionate on a statue about 7.5 m. [24.6'] tall. A statue of this size must have been part of the site where it was found. Since it is not likely that this was the statue at the chest of the Sphinx, we must examine the possibility that it was the statue to which Mariette made reference. [p. 369]

Mendes naos.

For the design of the reconstructed statue, Lehner used a small statuette found by Hassan near the north side of the Sphinx. The figure depicts the mummiform king wearing the double crown and holding an ankh sign. As New Kingdom cult statues were provided with a shrine, or naos, Lehner speculated that such was the case with the Osiride statue and so used the naos of Mendes (see above), carved from a single block of granite and of similar size, as a model for his reconstruction. "A colossal naos," wrote Lehner, "could have been considered the pr of the Osiride statue." [p. 374] In ancient times, a stairway likely led up to the naos.

Sphinx reconstruction.

Despite the evidence that the masonry boxes served as pedestals for statues, Lehner is not entirely convinced:

The boxes attached to the Sphinx statue are odd structures that defy immediate and easy explanation. Even odder is the fact that they have received little comment except that of Mariette (1882, 95)... Like the S large box, both the S and N small boxes show evidence of use as plinths or bases - flat socles built upon a fill of limestone and mortar. However there remains some doubt. The notion of the Sphinx flanked with smaller statues on pedestals here and there against the leonine body seems, at first, bizarre. The N large box is covered and has never been dismantled. It does not seem well constructed or properly located as a pedestal for a statue. [p. 267]

Is There a Chamber Beneath the Sphinx?

The idea that there is a chamber beneath the Great Sphinx at Giza likely has its roots in antiquity. In his Natural History, Pliny wrote:

In front of them [i.e. The Giza Pyramids] is the Sphinx, which deserves to be described even more than they, and yet the Egyptians have passed it over in silence. The inhabitants of the region regard it as a deity. They are of the opinion that a King Harmais is buried inside it... [Book 36 XVII]

But it was Edgar Cayce, the "sleeping prophet," who popularized the idea of a secret chamber associated with the Sphinx. According to Cayce, there is a "Hall of Records" with an entrance to be found between the paws of the Sphinx. In answer to the request, "Give in detail what the sealed room contains," Cayce answered:

A record of Atlantis from the beginning of those periods when the Spirit took form, or began the encasements in that land; and the developments of the peoples throughout their sojourn; together with the record of the first destruction, and the changes that took place in the land; with the record of the sojournings of the peoples and their varied activities in other lands, and a record of the meetings of all the nations or lands, for the activities in the destruction of Atlantis; and the building of the pyramid of initiation, together with whom, what, and where the opening of the records would come, that are as copies from the sunken Atlantis. For with the change, it [Atlantis] must rise again. In position, this lies -- as the sun rises from the waters -- as the line of the shadows (or light) falls between the paws of the Sphinx; that was set later as the sentinel or guard and which may not be entered from the connecting chambers from the Sphinx's right paw until the time has been fulfilled when the changes must be active in this sphere of man's experience. Then [it lies] between the Sphinx and the river. [378-16; Oct 29, 1933]

In the years to come, Cayce would speak more on the subject of the so-called Hall of Records:

It would be well if this entity were to seek either of the three phases of the ways and means in which those records of the activities of individuals were preserved -- the one in the Atlantean land, that sank, which will rise and is rising again; another in the place of the records that leadeth from the Sphinx to the hall of records, in the Egyptian land; and another in the Aryan or Yucatan land, where the temple there is overshadowing same. [2012-1; Sep 25, 1939]
... the entity joined with those who were active in putting the records in forms that were partially of the old characters of the ancient or early Egyptian, and part in the newer form of the Atlanteans. These may be found, especially when the house or tomb of records is opened, in a few years from now. [2537-1; Jul 17, 1941]
... [the entity] was among the first to set the records that are yet to be discovered or yet to be had of those activities in the Atlantean land, and for the preservation of data that is yet to be found from the chambers of the way between the Sphinx and the pyramid of records. [3575-2; Jan 20, 1944. Excerpts from Cayce, Edgar. On Atlantis. New York: Warner Books, 1968.]

The Rosicrucians seized the idea of a secret chamber as a place of initiation. (For more information and diagrams of their "Subterranean Hall," see The Rosicrucian View.) In more recent years, the theory of yet undiscovered chambers in the area of the Sphinx has been popularized by authors quick to criticize "mainstream" Egyptologists. In their book The Message of the Sphinx, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval report on the use of modern technology to investigate the ground surrounding the Sphinx:

In 1973-4 . . . the first in a series of serious pioneering projects was launched, using ground-penetrating radar and other high-tech remote sensing equipment to locate "anomalies" under the bedrock beneath the Sphinx. These projects were channeled through well-established academic institutions - the Ain Shams University in Cairo and the prestigious Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the USA.
In 1977 the US National Science Foundation funded a project at Giza again involving the SRI. This time use was made of several new techniques such as resistivity measurements (from metal rods driven into the rock across which an electric current was passed), magnetometry, and also the latest aerial photography and thermal infrared image-enhancing techniques. According to the SRI team's official report: "Several anomalies were observed as a result of our resistivity survey at the Sphinx ... Behind the rear paws (north-west end) we ran two traverses. Both traverses indicate an anomaly that could possibly be due to a tunnel aligned north-west to south-east ..." Two other anomalies were noted, deep in the bedrock "in front of the paws of the Sphinx." [p. 90-91]

Hancock and Bauval quote SRI geophysicist Lambert Dolphin, who relayed to me a rather different conclusion in a personal correspondence

Next we drilled 4 inch bore holes on the anomalies and inspected the hole with downhole TV. Nothing was found except small cracks. We paid special attention to the front paws, and under the paws. No chambers!
I do not believe there are any chambers under the Sphinx at this point in time.

There are three known passageways leading into the Sphinx. One is on the back of the Sphinx near its head. This shaft is short and leads to a dead end. Another is at ground level on the north side of the Sphinx near its hip. This shaft has been explored and leads to a dead end below the water table.

Passage entrance near left hip.

The third tunnel is known only from an unpublished photo made in 1926. It is located on the north side near the middle and has been covered with brickwork in later restorations. For more on these tunnels, see Known Sphinx Passages and also Zahi Hawass' 1997 NOVA interview.

Restoration work, 1997.

Zahi Hawass earlier addressed the rumored chamber in his 1990 "Update" to The Pyramids and Temples of Gizah by Flinders Petrie (London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1990; p. 101-102):

The last site investigated by the Japanese [Waseda University in Japan] was the Sanctuary of the Sphinx. The three areas targeted were:

A. South of the Sphinx.
B. North of the Sphinx.
C. In front of the two paws of the Sphinx.

The results were:

A. South of the Sphinx. The Japanese indicated the existence of a hollow 2.5 m. to 3 m. underground. And, they found indications of a groove on the Sphinx body that extends beneath the Sphinx.
B. North of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another groove similar to the southern one which may indicate that maybe there is a tunnel underneath the Sphinx connecting the south and north grooves.
C. In front of the two paws of the Sphinx. The Japanese found another hollow space about 1 m. to 2 m. below surface. Again, they believe that it might extend underneath the Sphinx.

The conclusion of the Japanese work suggests that the sanctuary of the Sphinx contains more cavities below the Sphinx than were previously known.
The combined data collected by the recent research at Giza resulted in the indications that there is/are:

1. Hollows located under the Sphinx as yet, not identified.
2. Cavities running from north to south underneath the Sphinx.
3. A tunnel south of the pyramid of Khufu ...

For more details on the Japanese work cited above, see the Waseda Report highlights.
It appears that there may indeed be undiscovered chambers and/or passageways in the area of the Sphinx. Though the Giza Plateau has been well-excavated, new discoveries are made there each year. But the idea that there is an Atlantean "Hall of Records" hidden under the Sphinx is based solely on the visions of a so-called "prophet" who in 1941 claimed the chamber would be discovered in a "few years."

Was There a Second Great Sphinx at Giza?

The Great Sphinx, carved from bedrock at Giza, is a unique monument. There had been nothing like it before, and nothing like it was to be constructed on the same scale since. But in ancient Egyptian iconography, sphinxes usually traveled in pairs. Could there have been a second Great Sphinx at Giza? Archaeologist Michael Poe is certain of it. He wrote:

There is currently absolutely no archaeological evidence of Khephren 'repairing' the Sphinx. There are two ancient Egyptian references, both during the Middle Kingdom, at a considerably later time. One has it that Khephren found the Sphinx (which would support the Sphinx is older than Khepern), and that Khephern altered it's face. This same source (fragmentary papyrus) said that there was another Sphinx facing this one on the other side of the Nile, and both were built here to represent the dividing line between Northern and Southern Egypt. The other reference said that Khephren built the Sphinx.
Have you ever seen just one Sphinx in later Egypt that didn't have another? Not only did the ancient Egyptians mention a second Sphinx, but so did the Greeks, Romans, and Muslims. It was destroyed between 1000-1200 ad.
At the entrance to buildings and temples there are two Sphinxes, side by side, but on the avenue or approach to the temple they are facing each other. Sometimes they may have as much as 100 or so facing each other in the avenue. The Nile is Egypt's avenue between North and South. All of the writings about the two Sphinxes say that they were facing each other. The second one, by the way, was partly destroyed during a high Nile flood, and then completely destroyed by ensuing Moslems carting it off to rebuild their villages.

Poe has more recently added the following information:

I'm not particularly proposing it's absolutely true, after all the people in Egypt in the 1000-1200's were subject to telling some pretty big stories (so are some the present day "guides"). It was, as I recall, made out of mudbrick and faced with stone. It makes sense that the stone would disappear around 1200 ad, Cairo had a large earthquake and the people used facing stones from the Great Pyramid to rebuild part of the town and would also use the ones at the 2nd Sphinx. That would leave the mudbrick to deteriorate to the weather, and the Nile gradually moved east away from the pyramids and may have engulfed and erased the 2nd Sphinx.
The Arab writers who mention a 2nd Sphinx are:
Al-I'Drisi (AD 1099-1166) who wrote about it in Kitab al-Mamalik wa al-Mansalik (a large geographic encyclopedia) and Al-Kitab al-Jujari, a geographical encyclopedia on Asia and Africa. He describes a second sphinx across the Nile from the first in very bad state of repair, made of mud (bricks?) and faced with stone, most of the stone having been hauled away by local inhabitants and now the Nile "lapping at it's feet." He doesn't say if it was the same size, but since the Nile moved further east after AD 1166, then it would have been destroyed.
Ibn Battuta (AD 1307-1377) in his Travels in Asia and Africa doesn't mention it, either because it doesn't exist, or has already been destroyed by then (it was written around AD 1325-1354).
Musabbihi mentions a smaller Sphinx across the Nile from the large one "south of Cairo" in a "ruined state of brick and stone" in the Annals of Rabi II around AD 1024.
Nasir-i Khosrau visited Egypt between Aug 1047 and April 1048 and heard rumors of a second one but apparently never looked for it or saw it.
It could have been a larger than usual Sphinx that normally lines the road to a temple and was the last of the line left after the Nile crept over to the location and destroyed all the others, easy to visualize as the destruction of the outer stones of the others would leave the mudbrick exterior subject to the flooding of the Nile.

Horus sphinxes at Edfu.

Authors Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval also believe that a second sphinx was likely. In their book The Message of the Sphinx, they maintain that the Sphinx was made to represent Atum-Harmachis (Harmachis being the Greek rendering of Hor-em-Akhet or Horus-in-the-Horizon). A stele of Amenhotep II names the Great Sphinx as both Hor-em-Akhet and Horakhti. The authors note that both names are frequently translated as "Horus-of-the-Two-Horizons." They write:

So if Hor-em-Akhet is the Great Sphinx in the western 'Horizon of Giza,' then should we not look for Horakhti, his, 'twin,' in the eastern horizon of the sky? [p. 162]

Assuming Michael Poe is correct with his details, there would be no trace remaining of the alleged second Sphinx, for on the eastern bank of the Nile there is nothing but city. Any evidence of such a monument would have been erased forever. There is little to support the notion that such a second sphinx ever existed at all, however. Despite Hancock and Bauval's assertions, the Great Sphinx was not identified with Hor-em-Akhet until centuries after the close of the Old Kingdom. In Riddles of the Sphinx, Paul Jordan wrote:

It [the Great Sphinx] might possibly have had a companion if its sculptors had cared to repeat the exercise of carving it... The later sphinxes of Egypt were often installed as pairs to guard entrances to significant places... An eminent Egyptologist once spent some time looking for another Great Sphinx on the other side of the river, but eventually gave up the idea. [p. 1]

Although Jordan does not name this individual, it is very likely W.M. Flinders Petrie, the "father of modern Egyptology." Margaret Drower, author of a recent biography of Petrie, wrote (Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology, p. 353):

As the season neared its end [1921-22], news came of the death of Mrs Urlin; Hilda hurried home, but Flinders stayed on a little in Cairo; he wanted to test a theory that the Great Sphinx at Giza might have had a counterpart on the other side of the Nile; he walked from Ma'adi over every foot of the ground opposite the pyramids, examining each outcrop of rock, and decided that there was no evidence for a contra-sphinx.

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 nose was gone by 1737 at the latest; thus its removal can not be blamed on Napoleon's troops, who visited more than 50 years later.

The Sphinx, 1755.

There exists an interesting account written by historian Muhammad al-Husayni Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (died CE 1442), in a book called al-Mawa`iz wa al-i`tibar fi dhikr al-khitat wa al-athar (G. Wien, ed., 1913). In vol. 2, page 157 of the Wien edition, al-Maqrizi states that the face, specifically the nose and ears, were demolished in 1378 by a Sufi from the khanqah of Sa`id al-Su`ada named Sa'im al-dahr. The reason for the vandalism, according to al-Maqrizi, was to "remedy some religious errors:" at that time some Egyptians were still burning milk-thistle (shuka`a) and safflower (badhaward) at the foot of the Sphinx while murmuring a verse 63 times in hope that their wishes would be fulfilled. "From the time of this disfigurement also," al-Maqrizi wrote, "the sand has invaded the cultivated land of Giza, and the people attribute this to the disfigurement of Abul-Hol [i.e., the Sphinx]."
It is interesting that al-Maqrizi mentions that the ears were demolished. As far as I can see, the Sphinx still has his ears.
The Sphinx, 1579.

The Sphinx's Identity Khafre 1

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.

mummy curses in ancient egypt

Though curses were not commonly recorded in the tombs of ancient Egypt, they were on occasion included. One of the more well-known is preserved in the Dynasty 5 Pyramid Texts :

As for anyone who shall lay a finger on this pyramid and this temple which belong to me and my ka, he will have laid his finger on the Mansion of Horus in the firmament, he will have offended the Lady of the Mansion ... his affair will be judged by the Ennead and he will be nowhere and his house will be nowhere; he will be one proscribed, one who eats himself.

A stele belonging to Sarenput I, a nomarch of Elephantine under Senusret I (Dynasty 12), is meant to protect the offerings left to the statue in his image:

As for every mayor, every wab-priest, every scribe and every nobleman who shall take [the offering] from the statue, his arm shall be cut off like that of this bull, his neck shall be twisted off like that of a bird, his office shall not exist, the position of his son shall not exist, his house shall not exist in Nubia, his tomb shall not exist in the necropolis, his god shall not accept his white bread, his flesh shall belong to the fire, his children shall belong to the fire, his corpse shall not be to the ground, I shall be against him as a crocodile on the water, as a serpent on earth, and as an enemy in the necropolis.

The efficacy of a curse as a deterrent depended, of course, on its location. A curse in a burial chamber itself would be of little value, as the sanctity of the tomb would have of necessity been violated before the curse could be read. Most tomb curses were therefore inscribed in the tomb chapel, the more public part of the tomb complex (curses that were recorded inside the tomb itself might presumably find their power not in being read, but in the written word itself). Curses were inscribed on walls, false doors, stelae, statues, and sometimes on the coffins themselves.
The curse formula typically contained two elements: A description of an act displeasing to the author of the curse, and the consequences to one performing this act (often in both this lifetime and beyond) through some agency (god, king, private person, animal, etc.) The possible consequences meant to befall transgressors were varied indeed:

I shall seize his neck like that of a goose (Inscription of Hermeru, Dynasty 6)

He shall die from hunger and thirst (on a statue of Herihor, High Priest of Amun, Dyn. 20-21)

He shall have no heir (inscription of Tuthmosis I, Dyn. 18)

His years shall be diminished (on a statue of Monthuemhat, Dyn. 25-26)

His lifetime shall not exist on earth (tomb of Senmut, Dyn. 18)

He shall not exist (tomb of Khnumhotep, Dyn. 12)

His estate shall belong to the fire, and his house shall belong to the consuming flame ... His relatives shall detest him (tomb of Tefib, Dyn. 9-10)

He shall be miserable and persecuted (tomb of Penniut, Dyn. 20)

His office shall be taken away before his face and it shall be given to a man who is his enemy (on a statue of the scribe Amenhotep, Dyn. 18)

His wife shall be taken away before his face (Apanage Stele, Dyn. 22)

His face shall be spat at (El-Hasaia tomb, Dyn. 26)

A donkey shall violate him, a donkey shall violate his wife (Deir el-Bahri Graffito No. 11, Dyn. 20)

His heart shall not be content in life (on a statue of Wersu, Dyn. 18)

He shall be cooked together with the condemned (tomb of Khety II, Dyn. 9-10)

His name shall not exist in the land of Egypt (on a statue of the high priest Herihor, Dyn. 20-21)

Recently, a curse was found on the entrance to the Dynasty 3 tomb of Petety at Giza (see the photo at the top of this page):

Listen all of you! The priest of Hathor will beat twice any of you who enters this tomb or does harm to it. The gods will confront him because I am honored by his Lord. The gods will not allow anything to happen to me. Anyone who does anything bad to my tomb, then the crocodile, hippopotamus, and lion will eat him.

The curse was best understood by the ancient Egyptian relative to his religion, culture, and society, all inseparable elements of his daily life. Certain ethical demands were made on him, and these were manifest in his behavior. The curse served to underscore his responsibility to Maat, the total system of order and justice, the overall pattern of life, the norm of social intercourse. The curse also reiterated the dire consequences of rebellion against Maat. This was the power of the curse, power that has vanished along with the civilization that produced it.

Cocaine and Tobacco in Ancient Egypt Sky High Egyptians? Were the Pharoahs Junkies? (Published at Samhain 1996)

Approximately 3,000 years ago, the mummified body of  Henut Taui was laid to rest in a dessert tomb of ancient Egypt.  During her long sleep, Rome rose and fell, the dark ages came and went, Europeans from Napoleon to the Brits conquered her home land, and finally in the early 1800s, the immortality her embalmers had sought for her was attained when her tomb was plundered.
Her body, preserved to the consistency of Beef Jerky, found its way to Germany, a museum in Munich, and during toxicological testing in the 1990s was found to contain large amounts of Cocaine and Tobacco . Cocaine and Tobacco are found only in New World plants, and logically should not have been attained by Ancient Egyptians without contact with America.  There are four possibilities

1. There was significant trade between the Americas and Ancient Egypt to allow Cocaine and Tobacco to find its way into circulation.
2. Cocaine and Tobacco once grew in the Old World as well, but later became extinct in these regions.
3. Similar plants and substances from the Old World could imitate Tobacco, Cocaine and pot
   1. Nicotine is not exclusive to Tobacco plants - But the "levels present in the Mummies in question were too high to have been derived from a dietary source" - Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science
4. The tissue samples are tainted by later contact with cocaine users, smokers, and potheads
5. Henut Taui  is a time traveling Crack head.

Dr  Svelta Balabanova a highly respected forensic toxologist and the inventor of several highly sensitive drug specific tests which are today's standards in establishing drug use, took samples from several mummies, including Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses the Great  . Not only was the presence of Cocaine and Tobacco established, but Cannabis as well . Apparently pot and cocaine use was fairly common among the Egyptian elite of antiquity. Dr Michele Lescott from the Museum of Natural History in Paris , among others has duplicated the Balabanova test results .
It has long been known that the Egyptians used a variety of drugs, this is not in question. However, the presence of the Cocaine and Tobacco in the bodies of these ancient Egyptians establishes a link between Old World and New, many Centuries before the accepted conservative dating that establishment scholars propose.




The problem started in Munich. A forensic pathologist specialising in toxins had been asked to carry out what should have been a series of routine tests on a number of whole and part mummies to determine what drugs had been used by the Egyptians and how widespread such use may have been. It has long been known that the Egyptians had and used a number of narcotics and hallucinogens including mandrake, belladonna and henbane - and lotus, one of the main icons of Egyptian art and religion, was also known to various ancient cultures as a powerful narcotic and hallucinogen. Anyone familiar with Egyptian art will be aware of just how important the lotus was as an image, whether as the columns supporting temples or in paintings and sculpture. The flowers, for instance, were often shown in art as being dipped into cups of drink.
What came as a bombshell, therefore, was the apparent discovery of both cocaine and tobacco in the mummy of a XXIst Dynasty priestess, as well as a number of other bodies and body parts. Disbelieving this incredible result, the pathologist re-ran her tests only to obtain the same results; she then sent samples from the bodies to other laboratories expecting negative results in which case she could have explained her original results as being due to contamination of the samples tested by her. To her amazement, the results came back the same. She then published her findings, only to come up against the archaeological establisment; the results were fraudulent; the results were the caused by gross negligence due to the contamination of the mummies and/or the samples; anyway, the results were impossible. The accusations of contamination were based on the suggestion that earlier generations of Egyptologists had been heavier smokers than those of today and had been more careless in handling the mummies. Stung by these accusations, the pathologist then took further samples taken from deep inside the mummies and had these analysed as well - still with the same result.
As a forensic pathologist with experience of undertaking police work, she was experienced in using what is known as the Hair Shaft Test, which is regarded in courts of law the world over as providing incontrovertible proof that a substance found on or in a body was ingested during life and could not be a post mortem contaminant. The principle is that when someone consumes a substance, it leaves traces in body tissue. Although such traces may be very quickly metabolised from soft tissue, eg the muscles, and vanish from soft tissue within hours or days, they will remain in the hair until the hair is physically cut off. Traces may therefore remain on the body, ie within the hair tissue, for many months or even years after consumption. The Hair Shaft Test is therefore used by police to detect cases in which poisons have been administered over a long period of time or by drugs testers on athletes and people being treated for drug abuse to determine precisely what drugs have been taken, in what quantities and when.
For the test, the hair sample is thoroughly washed to remove any surface contaminants. It is then retested; if the hair still tests positive this proves (to the satisfaction of courts of law the world over) that the drugs are contained within the hair tissue; they must therefore have been ingested over a period of time and could not be the result of later surface contamination by careless researchers.
The pathologist was also able to show that the tobacco concentrations found in some of the mummies were up to 32 times those found in modern smokers; such doses represented possibly lethal levels for a living person so it is not considered likely that they were ingested during life. However, the presence of such massive quantities of tobacco deep inside the bodies has been interpreted as evidence of mummification practices.
Deeply skeptical about the results, Dr David of Manchester Museum ran similar tests on a number of mummies in the Manchester collection. To her utter amazement these also produced positive results and showed that the Munich findings were not isolated. In the past couple of years, similar tests have been carried out on on bodies in from places as far apart as China, the middle east, Germany and Austria and ranging in date from around the same date as the mummies in question through to the European Middle Ages. The presence of tobacco (if not cocaine) was found in all these areas. Nor was it found in isolates specimens, for some areas traces were found in every body tested.
The German pathologist originally suggested that an unknown species of tobacco had once grown in Africa and Eurasia and had been used in various ways until it was driven to extinction by overuse. However, no evidence of an unknown species of tobacco has ever been found in Africa or Europe (unless Rameses II's bandages were shown to be made of tobacco fibre from an unknown specie - see below) - and besides that could not account anyway for the presence of cocaine in the mummies.
One theory which has emerged is that tobacco may have been one of the herbs used in mummification. Although it is known that embalmers and priests kept recipes for blends of herbs and spices which were used during the mummification process to cleanse, purify or otherwise preserve the bodies, such recipes were always kept as a ritual or professional secret. Consequently our knowledge of what was used for this process has almost entirely come from autopsies on mummies rather than from manuscripts or temple records, and to some extent we are still unsure as to what herbs and plants were used.
Ironically, some valuable evidence for the presence of tobacco had emerged over 20 years ago during tests and preservation work carried out on the mummy of Ramesses II who was taken to Paris in 1970s; as the body was found to have deteriorated alarmingly and was in need of rewrapping, part of the original bandages were removed and a researcher was given fragments for analysis. She discovered that they contained considerable quantities of fibre from the tobacco plant - results which were promptly "lost" and disregarded for almost 20 years because they were regarded at the time as "impossible".
The significance of the cocaine and tobacco discovery in Egypt (if it is eventually upheld and accepted by the archaeological establishment) is that it effectively blows apart current archaeological theories about the nature and scale of world trade in the ancient world. Bear in mind that, barely 40 years ago, the idea that the Vikings could have crossed the Atlantic to the Americas was considered utterly ludicrous. Here is a suggestion, however, that world trade was being carried on on a regular and organised basis some 2,000 years earlier. Impossible!
The somewhat conservative archaeological establishment is therefore having to wrestle with the idea that international trade on a world scale was regularly being undertaken from at least as early as 1,000 bce. What is NOT being suggested by anyone, however, is that the Egyptians were trading directly across the Atlantic with the Americas - with or without the benefit of warehousing facilities on Atlantis! Rather, it is suggested that trade was being conducted across the Pacific, probably by the Chinese, and that products from the Americas were being traded westwards through south Asia and the Middle East, eventually reaching Egypt. This theory has received independent support from a recent discovery of strands of silk amongst the hair of another mummy from around the time of the XXIst Dynasty, ie contemporary with our "junkie" priestess. It is most likely that this silk came via trade routes which ultimately linking Egypt with China. Clearly, products traded that far would have been luxuries and their use would have been restricted to either the rich and powerful or to those who had a religious or ritual use for them - eg the priesthood, members of the court and for the mummification of their bodies.
Leaving aside the trans-pacific trade theory, the other possible explanations for the positive test results are downright fraud or deliberate hoax (which would involve both the German pathologist and Dr David of Manchester and which is NOT being suggested); carelessness in conducting the tests (unlikely but not impossible by a forensic pathologist with experience of working with the police); contamination of some sort yet to be clarified; or that both tobacco and cocaine in some form had once grown in the Old World, or that some other plants with similar chemical constituents had once done so. The archaeological world currently seems to be favouring the last two possible explanations, ie contamination or an Old World source of some kind. However, the establishment is desperate not be seen to fall for something which turns out to be a hoax or fraud (memories of Piltdown still raise a shudder), nor are those individuals who have built their careers and reputations by arguing certain points of view happy at the thought of it all being swept away by a couple of bloody women.

Pure speculation ....

Another idea which I find intriguing (but which I have not seen discussed elsewhere yet) relates the later years of Rameses II. X-rays of his skull show that he, like many other Egyptians of the New Kingdom, suffered from appalling dental problems. These were mainly due to the presence of grains of sand in bread and other foods which wore the teeth down almost to the gums and allowed serious infections to develop in the teeth and jaw. Rameses, poor old bugger, suffered from a number of dental abcesses, the infection from which had effectively hollowed out whole sections of his lower jaw by the time he died. It has usually been agreed that his later years must have been filled with constant pain and therefore pretty miserable. But were they?
If, as now seems at least possible, cocaine was available in Egypt by about 1,000bce, is it impossible that it was already available during the XIXth Dynasty, a couple of centuries earlier? The Andean Indians have chewed coca leaves for centuries to relieve hunger pains, and cocaine derivatives are still among the commonest dental anaesthetics used today. Could the Egyptians have used cocaine, for example by chewing coca leaves, precisely to relieve dental pain, even if they did not have the ability to treat the underlying infection? Could Rameses' last years have been spent in greater comfort than has hitherto seemed possible, eased by the availability of painkillers which we have arrogantly assumed he could have have used? I'd love to know the answer!
I'd also like to bet that this discovery, if upheld , will eventually revolutionise not only our knowledge of international trade in the ancient world, but also our knowledge of its medical capabilities - especially in relation to complex surgery and anaesthesia.

 

Egyptraveluxe Tours -Egypt day tours and Egypt Travel: THE FINDS of nakht in the valley of the nobles

Egyptraveluxe Tours -Egypt day tours and Egypt Travel: THE FINDS of nakht in the valley of the nobles: yptraveluxe.com Create

THE FINDS of nakht in the valley of the nobles

The kneeling statue of Nakht. The best known of these is that of the 40cm high kneeling statue of Nakht, created in fine white limestone.

When Davies commenced his work of copying the tomb for the Egyptian Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum in 1908-9, he assumed that the subterranean chamber had been already been cleared, which wasn't the case. It was only in March, 1915, that he undertook this task and was immediately rewarded by the discovery of the statue, which had been flung down the shaft on its right side. This probably occurred when the burial chamber was rifled subsequent to the heretical movement of the Eighteenth Dynasty - the name Amon had been removed. Except for injuries to the left elbow and knee, caused by the fall, the statuette was practically undamaged and its brick-red flesh and the black of the hair had retained their brightness and colour.

Later in 1915, the statue was shipped to New York. On the way there, the steamer "Arabic" was torpedoed by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland, and was sunk. This resulted in the loss of the statue, all that now remains are Davies' original photographs and replicas, such as the one currently seen in the niche at the back of the rear chamber.

The statue is that of a kneeling figure in a simple Egyptian white kilt, presenting an upright stela-shaped slab. If this had been located in the rear niche, and facing the entrance of the complex, it would (in theory) have faced the rising sun, making the textual content more in keeping. At the top of the stela are the pair of udjat-eyes, separated by a shen-ring and a nun-dish.


The stela-shaped slab had eight rows of yellow inscribed hieroglyphs with the following address to the Sun-god : "An adoration of Re, from the time of his rising, until he sets in life, by the serving priest of [Amon], the scribe Nakht, justified. 'Hail to you, Re at your rising, Atum at your beautiful setting. You appear and gleam on the back of your mother. You have appeared as king [of the gods]. Nut performs the nini-greeting before your face. Ma'at embraces you always. You traverse the heavens with a glad heart, the sea of knives (a locality in the celestial world through which Re passes) has become peaceful, the venomous enemy is felled, his hands are bound and knives have severed his vertebrae.' ".

• Further tomb finds, found in and around the complex, were sparse and usually fragmented. Parts of several coffins, furniture, earthenware vessels and some funerary cones were rescued. The few almost completely damaged finds were the result of looting of the tomb by tomb robbers. These are listed here as given by Davies in his publication, but re-ordered slightly (the numbers on the images are referenced in the details and are not the actual find numbers).

	Two coarse red jars, 12 and 19 cm. high, with ribbed neck and with dark red bands painted in the hollows and on the shoulder (image 1). This shape of jar, which is known in pre-dynastic times and is common, in the Middle Kingdom, thus re-appears in the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. A slim jar (broken) of pale yellow pottery painted with four rows of blue petals between compound red lines. It stood about 30 cm. high, the actual fragment being 28 cm. long and 8.25 cm. broad at the mouth (image 2). This type of jar is frequently represented in Eighteenth Dynasty tombs, but is generally given a more bulbous shape and larger dimensions. Being used as a water jar, its mouth is closed with grass and its neck entwined with foliage to keep the contents cool. Hence it is appropriately decorated with painted garlands and spray. A red pottery pitcher with handle, decorated with a double black line at the junction of the neck and shoulder. Similar double lines run from this to the foot, with black spots between the lines (image 3). The broken sides and lid of a wooden box 40 cm. long, painted in black and white panels (image 5). Parts of sides, ends, and cover of one or two boxes about 35 cm. by 19 cm., painted with black bands on white and a central panel in red, the cover being slightly arched (images 4 and 6). Similar boxes are shown in almost every picture of burial equipment and were probably intended to hold ushabti figures. It is interesting both in this and in other cases to be able to take in the hand and measure the actual objects pictured on the walls. Two of the four legs and the connecting bar of a small table or stand of hard unpainted wood. The legs were 25 mm. square in section and curved slightly outward. The table (?) was 48 cm. long and stood a little less than 30 cm. high. Three of the four legs and a piece of the seat-frame of a low wooden chair painted black, 24 cm. high in front. The back legs are lower, so as to give a comfortable slope to the seat (images 14 and 15). A similar set, painted white. Two sides of the frame are pierced with eighteen holes to take the string or thongs of the seat, which was about 60 cm. square and raised 26 cm. from the ground in front (images 8, 9, 12 and 13). Three legs of a rougher and somewhat higher chair, painted black (images 10 and 11). The top rail of a chair-back hollowed out to the form of the seated person and having five tenon holes to take flat uprights, a broad one in the centre and two on each side (image 7). It is 37.5 cm. long, and, being black, perhaps belongs to item 7 above. These three chairs probably went with the three coffins, one to each. The legs were carved, as usual, to represent the two fore legs and the two hind legs of a lion and each pair was joined half-way down by a side bar. A wooden bracket to strengthen a joint of a table or of the chair-back above. Three funerary cones inscribed with the name and titles of Nakht and his wife. See below for further details. A wedge-shaped brick of burnt clay, stamped on three sides with the same impression as the funerary cones, is probably from M. Grébaut's clearance of the tomb. A face from a man's anthropomorphic coffin in hard red wood, the wig painted black with yellow stripes, the eyebrows and eyes having been inlaid (with coloured glass probably). Also pieces of the curved head-end painted a dull black with broad horizontal yellow bars-a common type. A face from a woman's coffin of a similar type in common wood, coloured white with painted eyes (black) and eyebrows (blue). Also the foot-end and a broken side-plank of a coffin of the same sort. A similar face painted yellow, with eyes and eyebrows as above. Pieces of a coffin smeared with black pitch with decoration in light yellow. A goddess stands on the nub sign at the end. A legend ran down a longitudinal column on the lid and dedications to the gods of burial down transverse bands. The name is illegible. These three (?) coffins may be attributed to Nakht, his wife, and one or more of his children or relatives. Part of the stem of an octagonal head-rest, of rather rough work. The fitting had been cleverly done by the use of forked pins cut from twigs. Such a peg, on being driven in where two diverging holes ran into one, spread out and held the two pieces firmly together. Two pieces of a light walking-stick (probably placed originally in the coffin with the body). A tiny hard-wood stick for applying kohl to the eyes. [ Kohl was a black eye cosmetic, made by grinding galena (lead suphide) and other ingredients.] A wooden hair-pin.

• The three funerary cones. Made of terracotta, these would have been inserted above the entrance to the complex. Their exact function is unclear. They all resemble the one shown in the above list but their sizes vary, all approximately 20cm in length. The three columns of inscription on the flat circular face state: "The revered before Osiris, the serving priest of Amon, the scribe Nakht and his sister, the chantress of Amon, Tawy.".

• A pedestal. The tomb of Nakht also contained, perhaps fortuitously, a pedestal like an elongated pot-stand, carrying a round slab on top. It is hollow and roughly made of unbaked mud mixed with straw. This is, in crude form, the blue pedestal of the round alabaster slab which is found in the pictures, piled with food, in front of the deceased. In a more squat form, and cut entirely out of alabaster, this pedestal-table furniture was known in the early dynasties. This was found by Davies in the inner room, among some rubble originating from an excavation of a tomb, of a later period, TT23.