Talk:Sphinx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Purushamriga, human-beast or man-deer?

While doing my research on the purushamriga the issue of the meaning of the word mriga was part of the discussion. The translation 'human-beast' comes from A.B.Keith's translation of the Yajur Veda (1914), p.452. I am aware that in classical Sanskrit mriga generally means deer or antelope (etc). But for instance the scholar B.G.Tilak in his book "The Orion, or the researches into the anto the antiquity of the Vedas" mentions that in the Rig Veda the word mriga can also mean lion. I have therefore chosen to follow the translation of Keith, because it is obvious (see the photos in my website) the purushamriga is part lion, part human. It is also described as such in the tradition by various works and scholars.

There are a few instances where we find depictions of purushamriga, the Indian Sphinx, with deer hooves instead of claws. For instance in the examples from Thailand. And I have also found a few in South India. But this could have been the result of the artist understanding the word mriga to mean 'deer'. I am not sure of this. It is still under investigation.

In the meantime I prefer to use the term given by Keith, 'human-beast'.

Rajadeekshitar 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Origins of Sphinx

I'm not sure, so I won't add it to the main page, but weren't there also Sphinxes in Chinese sculpture and mythology?

Hi, i love the sphinx,when the mood stricks me - BAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.44.225 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the lion-dog guardians with one paw on the pearl, or the young dragons? the idea of a human head on an animal's body seems very barbarian in Chinese culture, I think. Wetman 00:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Obviously this article needs a little reorganization. There are several sphinices (I think this is the proper plural, after the model index => indices), all of which derive from either the Greek Sphinx (whose name was then used to describe the Egyptian monument) or the Egyptian Sphinx (which then inspired the story about the creature Oedipus encountered). If nothing else, can a way be found where the first item in the section index is not "External Link"? Having that section header in first place makes the article look odd. -- llywrch 00:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that sphinx in Greek connotes "the strangler" (cf. "asphyxiate"), and that the Greeks applied their archaic monster's name to the (unrelated?) Egyptian sphinx. What did Egyptians call a sphinx? The revived sphinx in the 16th century comes out of Roman arabesque/grotesque decorative painting, not directly from Egypt or Greece. Wetman 04:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The proper Greek plural is sphinges, but I think sphinxes is okay in English. Although if you feel daring you could go for sphinxen. Bacchiad 03:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the Greek spelling of Sphinx to proper ancient Greek, ie. from nx/ng to a double gamma, which served to denote such sounds in antiquity. What was there before was a nu-gamma and nu-xi combination which, though phonetically correct for English, did not follow the spelling conventions of Classical Greek. This is in accordance with the spelling given in the Liddell and Scott ancient Greek Lexicon. Alexaion 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the last statement regarding the liminal quality of the Oedipus/Sphinx myth should not be removed. It doesn't flow quite right in regards to the rest of the article (it is a sharp shift from explaining the myth to mythological theory) and, moreover, I cannot say that the statement is absolutely correct. Indeed, though it comes from a scholarly source according to the footnote, I'm not certain of how accurate such a statement is in the context of myth and archaeology as a whole. It is true that some symbols can portray such a shift and contrast from old to new (say, the Furies in Aeschylos' Oresteia), but I think it might be a bit of a leap to say the Sphinx is one such for several reasons. Firstly, it implies that the Sphinx is a creature of an older order than the Olympians. Indeed, Hesiod places the Sphinx with the old generation of Typhon and Echidna, but in so far as Greek society goes, the Olympian gods far predated Homer or Hesiod, and were worshipped already pre-Dark Age. Furthermore, nothing in Greek myth implies that ever the Sphinx was worshipped as an old cult, such as might have been supplated by the worship of the Olympians at some point, so internally to the literature there is little strength for such a statement (note that this is in contrast to the Furies/Eumenedies, whose change in cult IS evidenced in Aeschylos' play; the Sphinx has no such direct shift.) Finally, to so strongly contrast the old rituals with the new Olympians is a structuralistic approach that is a slightly outdated theory. While useful, it is not one that is not agreed upon by all scholars. For these reasons, I think it would be best not to mention something that might be a disputed subject. Or, if it must be said, it must be emphasised that this is but one approach (ie. perhaps replace with 'thus it has led some to theorize that...'), and that others might just as rightly claim the Sphinx of Oedipus for a mere foe, no different than Prokrustes was to Theseus, or the Lion to Herakles. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Theban legends, the story of the house of Kadmos to which Oedipus belongs, sees such a liminal figure far more strongly in another: Pentheus the king, who resisted Dionysos, and who reigned well before Oedipus.Alexaion 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article introduction states:

"invented by the Ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom"

This is not true. Scientists recently have new discoveries about the ages of the Sphinx of gaza. Regardless of the origination of the term Sphinx, the human-headed lion in Gaza is more then 20,000 years old. We need to research this data and update the article so it is correct.--AI 09:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, what you say is not true. A small number of not very well regarded people have a theory that the sphinx is older than 20,000 years old, but it is not a proven fact. Most scholars dispute those claims. DreamGuy 17:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The egyptian sphinxs have signs of erosion caused by rain and/or jungle climate. Climate change in the area to desert happened 10000-15000 years ago, possibly dating the sphinx older than the egyptian civilization --213.100.90.171 13:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's enough grounds to make the fact disputed about the origin. I'm not saying the first part about the old kingdom referance should be removed, but as more evidence is collected keeping the current wording shows signs of bias against new findings. The fact the arcticle doesn't even mention them clearly demonstrates a lack of neutrality.Jinnai (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. Fringe theories are not given equal weight in Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia rightly gives the consensus of modern scholars as to the origin of the Sphinx. Brando130 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch

...........................................

[edit] Great Sphinx

Why is the Great Sphinx not a true sphinx? Is it not thought to be a lion's body? Or is there some difference between crouching and recumbent pose? Rmhermen 05:14, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up the article Sphinx

For people with a short attention span and no genuine interest in the history of images or ideas, it might seem like a good idea to split Sphinx into numerous brief articles, so that any possible interconnections will be untraceable. I hope this won't be done as thoughtlessly as it was suggested. Leave the splitting for the individual Pokemon characters, please! They offer a fine example of how minute splitting can render Wikipedia subjects incomprehensible. Wetman 04:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree in principal, there are too many fragmented articles that disturbs comprehension, although once enough material accumulates it makes sense to have separate articles, with an umbrella article (like this one) that ties common themes and subjects together, similar to what was done with First Crusade or Middle Ages. But not until there is enough material to justify a split should one be made, and only when the top level article can contain a summary of the main points which are expanded in detail the offshoot article. Stbalbach 21:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orientation of the Great Sphinx

"On the vernal equinox, the Great Sphinx points directly toward the rising sun." Any particulars would be welcome. --Wetman 19:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] admin article rename request

We need administrator help to make this move. There was an error made while making a disambiguation page. Stbalbach 23:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, ahoa, whoa what the heck is going on here? Why move an article about the Sphinx to a page called Sphinx (iconic image)? That makes no sense. What on earth on the disambig page comes anywhere near close to being something that someone who typed that word in would be looking for instead of this? I don;t understand what you are doing, and the talk information above doesn;t show any interest in splitting the article up so that the main usage is at a weird location. What's going on? DreamGuy 00:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the articles are now at Sphinx and Sphinx (disambiguation). Everything ok? –Hajor 00:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, yeah, that's what it should be. I saw someone changing a link to Sphinx on an article and making it Sphinx (iconic image) and went here to look for what was going on but didn't see anything except moving Sphinx to Sphinx, which makes no sense. Looks like someone got too bold and moved the article and had to get help to get it back but it wasn't spelled out so that someone coming to see could know what was going on. DreamGuy 00:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Great; this really deserves primary topic ranking, but having a disambig page for the other uses is handy, too. Panic over; move along now, nothing to see here. Don't forget to share your holiday snaps with the WikiCommons Sphinx. –Hajor 00:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This was my first try at creating a disambiguation page. Sorry about the major mixup. I was using Elevation as an example and the main article there is a disambiguation page. --Randy 01:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
's ok. The difference with elevation is that the (first three, at least) uses are more or less equally important, so that article is made into the disambig page. Here, one of the meanings is clearly far more prominent, so it gets the choice location and the other (subsidiary) ones are relegated to Sphinx (disambiguation). DreamGuy (above) asks the key question: What on earth on the disambig page comes anywhere near close to being something that someone who typed that word in would be looking for instead of this? That's the clincher. Anyway, all sorted and no harm done. Cheers, –Hajor 02:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
A quantitative way is the "What links here", if one Sphinx article has a lot of incoming links, thats a good bet it should occupy the prime real estate. Plus your technically supposed to edit all the articles to remove the disambig, and looking at Sphinx that would have been a huge job :) Stbalbach 02:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over the age of the Great Sphinx

After I reverted a date to 12,000 (not a typo!) BCE, I received this uninformative geological report:

"I reccomend that you read about the geological studies about the sphinx prior to calling real science zany vs the preconcieved beliefs of the egyptologists that cannot reineforce their arguments with facts. Like it or not there are facts that support a construction date as far back as 12500 BCE. The mainstream egyptologists will not support that date as it throws "their" calander off so far that they would have to do some real thinking. BTW, Geology is far more factual than opinion - anybody's." (Folks can imagine my opinion... Wetman 02:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) )
Why is this info not in the article? I have reviewed the geological evidence myself, and know many history professors that accept it. What is the big deal? Also, why is this under a "talk" heading of pseudogeology? Has anyone provided a counterexplanation for the water errosion clearly visible at the base of the pyramid?
I have heard this before, but have never seen a source. This was added by an anonymous contributor:
* New scientific evidence indicates that the sphinx before the pharaoh Khafra was really a lion. Khafra had his head carved on the lion.
If anyone has references, please write them here. Otherwise, I'll do some research when I get time.--AI 03:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There was a documentary once... it was called "The Mystery of the Sphinx" I think... talked a lot about water erosion, and it dated the creation time to around 9000BCE. Hobowu 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legend Story

If not done so, why not include the story of the riddling sphinx? That story, if you're looking for it, is on almost every search engine. The best site is link title. It will tell you the story in different versions. This message for all LITERATURE LOVERS.--Mac Simms 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One point-of-view

Can anyone render the following assertion—"extrapolated to norms of the race", etc— sensibly and suggest where it originates?

Like other monsters taken from Greek mythology, the basic themes of the Egyptian and Greek sphinxes are extrapolated to norms of the race as a whole. For example, most portrayals of the Sphinx have is either obligated to, or fond of, forcing potential victims to answer riddles to spare their lives. Sphinxes are depicted with varying levels of intellect and savagery, and tend to live in desert areas.

For the time being, I've moved it here. --Wetman 02:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

May I suggest adding this self-made photograph to the article? -- Omernos 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Whose names are these?

Who invented these Greek names: "Androsphinx" (it can't be with the head of a woman with that name, can it?), "Criosphinx", and "Hierocosphinx"? Are these antiquarian inventions? 18th century? 19th century? And whence the name "Sesheps"? An inscription somewhere?--Wetman 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Sphinx's origins...

Are ya'll sure it was an invention of the egyptians? I heard somewhere that its precedents were in the fantasticd animals represented on mesopotamian carvings, whom the egyptians traded with. Any answer to that? get back to me ya'll, peace. Teth22 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the origin of the greek sphinx

i have to do a report on the greek sphinx and i need to know some of its' habbits, origins, and stuff like that. i need hard core evidence, something that is believeable. so far, i know nothing about the greek sphinx. so can you please help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.220.95.1 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] What happened to the nose?

I am currently having a discussion on the nose of the Sphinx, did it get destroyed by European invaders, did it fall off because of erosion, did it fall off because of a failed restoration attempt or some other way? (Or is it even known.) Thanks !

It was shot off by Napolean's soldiers, but I don't hav ea source.

[1] says that the missing nose was smashed of by a Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr who was a Sufi fanatic. Should there be a bit more information on the Great Sphinx? Akid 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)you are all homosexuals

[edit] New Section - Sphynx in Occult Symbolism

Trying to dig up sources, until then using the talk page as a holding place for the new section. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In occult symbolism they sphynx has the head of a human, the wings of an eagle, the front quarters of a lion, and the rear quarters of a bull. This corresponds to the fixed signs of Astrology, with the human being Aquarius and air, the lion being Leo and fire, the bull being Taurus and earth, and the eagle being Scorpio and water

The sphinx with the body of the lion and human head represents the astrological point in between where Leo ends and Virgo begins and it symbolises the taming of the spirit. Astrology is a unifying factor in the sphinxes across all the different cultures represented on the page and explains the similarities between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmvirgo (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] persian sphinx

has any body got information about the sphinx in persia. There are a lot pictures of the "persian" sphinx but no information about it's importance and mythologie in persia! in the article there is no word about the sphinx in persia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.97.177 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) he's right you know

[edit] Sphinx in Freemasonry

This section and the picture added could be useful, but it needs some citations for verification. Particularly: Sphinxes were placed at the entrance of the temple to guard the mysteries, by warning those who penetrated within, that they should conceal a knowledge of them from the uninitiated; and hence Portal derives the word from the Hebrew TSaPHaN, to Hide. - this needs a reliable source added, especially the 'uninitiated' bit, as it sounds a bit like Masonic terminology being pushed onto Egyptian use of the Sphinx.

Also, by which Portal suggests that the priests intended to express the idea that all the gods were hidden from the people, and that the knowledge of them, guarded in the sanctuaries, was revealed to the initiates only.

The editor mentions Champollion but does not directly cite him, and no modern reliable sources are cited. Those sentences need to be removed if a reliable source is not given for them. Brando130 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sphinx prior to ancient egypt?

Guys, maybe you should take a look at this: http://guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm It says the Sphinx was there from around 7000 BC, before the egyptian civilization started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.239.148 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's quite interesting, but says this theory is rubbish. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish? Why? It seems only a head of the Sphinx is Egyptian origin, the body could be older Zenanarh (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)