04.04.2013 Views

Know_files/FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS.pdf - D Ank Unlimited

Know_files/FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS.pdf - D Ank Unlimited

Know_files/FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS.pdf - D Ank Unlimited

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Graham Hancock – <strong>FINGERPRINTS</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>THE</strong> <strong>GODS</strong><br />

Sphinx is now so confidently attributed to Khafre:<br />

1 Because of the cartouche of Khafre on line 13 of the Sphinx Stela<br />

erected by Thutmosis IV: Maspero gave a perfectly reasonable<br />

explanation for the presence of this cartouche: Thutmosis had been a<br />

restorer of the Sphinx and had paid due tribute to an earlier<br />

restoration of the monument—one undertaken during the Fourth<br />

Dynasty by Khafre. This explanation, which bears the obvious<br />

implication that the Sphinx must already have been old in Khafre’s<br />

time, is rejected by modern Egyptologists. With their usual telepathic<br />

like-mindedness they now agree that Thutmosis put the cartouche on<br />

to the stela to recognize that Khafra had been the original builder (and<br />

not a mere restorer).<br />

Since there had only ever been this single cartouche—and since the<br />

texts on either side of it were missing when the stela was excavated, is<br />

it not a little premature to come to such hard-and-fast conclusions?<br />

What sort of ‘science’ is it that allows the mere presence of the<br />

cartouche of a Fourth Dynasty pharaoh (on a stele erected by an<br />

Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh) to determine the entire identification of<br />

an otherwise anonymous monument? Besides, even that cartouche has<br />

now flaked off and cannot be examined ...<br />

2 Because the Valley Temple next door is also attributed to Khafre:<br />

That attribution (based on statues which may well have been intrusive)<br />

is shaky to say the least. It has nevertheless received the wholehearted<br />

endorsement of the Egyptologists, who in the process decided to<br />

attribute the Sphinx to Khafre too (since the Sphinx and the Valley<br />

Temple are so obviously connected).<br />

3 Because the face of the Sphinx is thought to resemble the intact<br />

statue of Khafre found in the pit in the Valley Temple: This, of<br />

course, is a matter of opinion. I have never seen the slightest<br />

resemblance between the two faces. Nor for that matter had forensic<br />

artists from the New York Police Department who had recently been<br />

brought in to do an Identikit comparison between the Sphinx and the<br />

statue 29 (as we shall see in Part VII).<br />

All in all, therefore, as I stood overlooking the Sphinx in the late<br />

afternoon of 16 March 1993, I considered that the jury was still very<br />

much out on the correct attribution of this monument—either to Khafre<br />

on the one hand or to the architects of an as yet unidentified high<br />

civilization of prehistoric antiquity on the other. 30 No matter what the<br />

29 Ibid., pp. 230-2; Mystery of the Sphinx, NBC-TV.<br />

30 At least one orthodox Egyptologist, Selim Hassan, has admitted that the jury is still<br />

out on this issue. After twenty years of excavations at Giza he wrote, ‘Except for the<br />

mutilated line on the Granite Stela of Thutmosis IV, which proves nothing, there is not<br />

one single ancient inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafre. So, sound as it<br />

may appear, we must treat this evidence as circumstantial until such a time as a lucky<br />

turn of the spade will reveal to the world definite reference to the erection of this<br />

statue.’ Cited in Conde Nast Traveller, February 1993, pp. 168-9.<br />

337

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!