Khafres Temples Giza Part IV The Sphinx

Khafre‟s Temples, Giza: Part IV
The Sphinx Temple : A Layman‟s Guide

Keith Hamilton 25th November 2021
Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth
This final part of the guide on Khafre‟s Temples will focus on the Sphinx
temple. To keep the guide to a manageable size and prevent repetition it is
advisable that the reader acquaint themselves to parts I, II, & III. The image
above shows some of the ruinous remains of the sphinx temple, and for the
majority of people this is as close as we can get; by placing a camera through a
gap in a fence. Off limits to tourists, it is very difficult to obtain data on these
ruins; indeed, as has been discussed in previous parts, the literature on the
temple is very sparse. Though discovered by Baraize in 1925, nothing was
recorded or published and much valuable evidence has been lost forever; our
only record is black and white images of the excavations. It‟s fair to say, that it
was not Egyptology‟s finest hour, and possibly worse than Barsanti‟s disastrous
excavations at the Great Pit of Zawiyet el-Aryan; but at least here, Barsanti
made an attempt to record what he found.
In order to rectify this sorry state of affairs, Herbert Ricke undertook some
probes in the temple from 1965 to 1967; though he was hampered in his
1
investigations in front of the temple, due to paraphernalia connected with an
open air stage in front of the temple: his findings were published in 1970.1
Ricke‟s study is described as meticulous by Mark lehner2, which I feel is a bit of
an exaggeration; as the publication is quite thin on detail. Consisting of around
39 pages of text, the amount set aside to describe the technical details of the
temple is much reduced, when we take into account that put aside for history,
interpretation etc. Prior to Ricke‟s publication, the Italian scholars Maragioglio
and Rinaldi (M&R), published their brief findings on the sphinx temple in
1966.3 It would appear that Ricke was not aware of this earlier study, as he does
not mention it in his work.
The above plan is part of M&R‟s TAV 14, and shows the sphinx temple
alongside the valley temple, which is connected to the causeway: the paws of
the sphinx are top of the image. The chambers in the western end of the sphinx
1
Der Harmachistempel des Chefren in Giseh, Heft 10, H.Ricke 1970
2
Giza and the Pyramids. Lehner & Hawass, 2017, page 223
L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2 and TAV 14
3
2
temple are partially excavated out of the higher terrace on which the sphinx sits,
which I have roughly highlighted above; whilst the remainder of the temple is
built on a lower terrace.
The above Plan 1 is a more accurate layout from Ricke‟s publication, and
several differences are apparent. For example, Ricke was the first to observe
that the south wall of the temple and the north wall of the valley temple were
angled somewhat; prior to this, depictions of the temples are set as square
constructions. Generally the information on the sphinx temple is rather sparse;
though further work in more recent times has been done by Lehner & Hawass
3
(L&H), and the area in front of the temples has been better excavated; but the
temple is a complex ruin in need of more detailed scrutiny. As it is, I was in two
minds as to whether I should attempt a guide on the temple; especially
considering the controversy that surrounds it and the sphinx, and the long
running argument on the age of the structures. As I have previously stated in
other parts, I am satisfied that the current layout of the Valley and Sphinx
temples are indicative of 4th dynasty architecture; however, I feel it cannot be
discounted that in the space in front of the sphinx, an earlier structure may have
at one time existed.
Compared to the valley temple, the sphinx temple is in ruinous condition; whilst
the valley temple retains most if its interior granite pillars, cladding and
alabaster components, the stone robbers had done a thorough job on the sphinx
temple. This might be down to the low height of the sphinx temple compared to
the valley temple, which made it easier to breach into the temple and remove its
valuable stone. Not much of this stone remains, and in Ricke‟s plan, the few
surviving valuable stones are the highlighted dark patches. Indications are that
the sphinx temple in its current plan was not completed. Remnants of granite
cladding in the temples interior and the telltale cuttings into the softer core
limestone, suggest that the interior of the temple was well advanced. In contrast
it was noted by M&R and Ricke that the evidence for any external cladding
appeared absent. M&R would point out the lack of any cuts in the core
limestone for exterior cladding, such as we see in the valley temple, moreover,
they state that no traces of any casing foundation was found. Along with some
other observations, M&R conclude by stating; “The above seems to us to prove
that the fine stone casing that was certainly planned for the outside of the
temple was never carried out, except at the portals so as to ensure that the
edifice was closed with doors.”4 Other indications of unfinished work include
the unfinished cutting of the sphinx‟s northern enclosure wall to conform to
Ricke‟s second building phase, and what appears an unfinished area in front of
the temple.5 In short, given the ruinous state of the site, it is very difficult to
determine the completed status of the temple when work ceased.
4
Ibid, page 134
5
M&R state that there appear to be no indications of a pavement in front of the temple (page 134) and in
L&H’s work; Giza and the Pyramids, page 225, we appear to have further indicator’s of unfinished work
4
The temple, like the valley temple has two entrances on its eastern facade, and
in Ricke‟s plan 2 above, we can see his reconstruction of the eastern facade.
Most of the clues for this reconstruction are taken from the remains of the valley
temple, and so we see similar cornicing and epithets around the entrance doors
(the dashed lines in the upper image at the northern and southern ends are the
original location of the temples outer walls in Ricke‟s phase 1, before the
temple was widened).
In part III of this guide (pages 56-58), M&R

mentioned a cornice block with part of a crown.
This was also noticed by Ricke, and he gives the
lower attachment on which the relief was cut as
some 51.5cm (1 cubit) high. In his work, Ricke
mentions two matching fragments of a cornice
block, which he thought was undoubtedly built
over the southern entrance of the valley temple, and
that these fragments depicted the double crown.6
His reconstruction from his fig 16 is shown left; he
would give the single leaf door as some 8.40m
high. This would be the tallest reconstruction for a
single leaf door at the Valley temple. Whether a
similar, though less high facade existed at the
6
Der Harmachistempel des Chefren in Giseh, Heft 10, H.Ricke 1970, page 28
5
sphinx temple is open to conjecture. Many of the finely carved granite cornice
blocks were found amongst debris inside the southern end of the sphinx temple,
and these are thought to have been dislodged from the higher north wall of the
valley temple. Ricke would report that some 12 of these cornice blocks were
found inside the sphinx temple, amounting to a total length of about 15m, or
about the twelfth part of that required to top off the valley temple.7 More would
appear to have been found in later excavations in front of the valley temple. (see
image on page 1, part II).
Image TUR_Giza548, courtesy of The Giza Project-Harvard University
The early image above shows some of the cornice blocks from the valley
temple, which were found inside the sphinx temple. Given the gap between the
two temples, this gap was likely filled with debris etc, when the cornice stones
were dislodged and dumped inside the sphinx temple. Such intricate stones
7
Ibid, page 28
6
would have a limited recyclable value, compared to the normal cladding, which
is probably why they appear to be so numerous. Also in the above image we can
see the vertical face of the upper terrace; this border to the lower terrace,
according to M&R‟s TAV 14, is just over 8m further east from the temples west
wall, and it is interesting to note its good preservation, compared to the more
heavily eroded members visible inside the sphinx enclosure.
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-023938
In the earlier image above, taken during Baraize‟s excavations, we can see some
of the partially cleared sphinx temple; various blocks of masonry can be seen
along with the cornice blocks. In the left foreground we can make out the top of
the south wall, and a small part of the vertical face of the upper terrace.
As has been previously discussed in Part II, the sphinx was surrounded by
a mud brick wall; this ran along the top of the southern, western and northern
parts of the sphinx enclosure, and though not visible in the image above it
would run along the top of the sphinx temples rear/west wall. Surviving images
from Baraize‟s excavations are our only record of this wall, and to better
8
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, black and white Photo 02393.
opencontext.org/projects/101-arce-sphinx-project-1979-1983-archive
7
orientate these images for the reader, I will first show a modern image, of the
temples rear/west wall, with numbered limestone core blocks.
Image courtesy of Meretseger Books
In the above image we are looking down from the causeway, at the rear wall of
the temple; the modern gate on the right gives access to the gap between the two
temples. Judging from the archive images, modern repairs appear to have been
carried out; for example, the large core block above 6 is absent in the archive
images.
8
The above archive image from 1926, is from a similar viewpoint, and I have
numbered the blocks as per the previous image. The wall which ran along the
top of the sphinx temple had a sub foundation of smaller masonry blocks, which
sat atop the megalithic core blocks of the temple. Large blocks of masonry can
be seen on the floor of the sphinx enclosure. In the far left of the image, the
remains of later period steps leading down to the floor of the sphinx enclosure
can just be made out.
9
9
In this view, we are looking towards the southeast; the higher walls of the valley
temple are in the background, with people standing on top. The steps previously
mentioned can be seen more clearly, leading down to a paved area in front of
the sphinx‟s paws. In this image we can see that the substantial mud brick wall
has been removed, and judging from the dates from the previous image, it was
done within 9 days. None of these walls were properly recorded or any
stratigraphy carried out; though they are generally attributed to Thutmose IV. It
would seem strange that Thutmose would leave such large masonry blocks
littering the floor of the sphinx enclosure, given the immense effort in clearing
the enclosure and erecting substantial walls around the sphinx to protect it.
10
10
This earlier archive image dated some 12 months before the previous images
shows the southeast corner of the sphinx enclosure. Here we can see how the
wall curves at this location to join the wall which runs along the top of the
southern enclosure wall. The vertical face of the southern enclosure wall is
visible on right of image disappearing into the mass of brick and small masonry
blocks. The gap between the two temples appears to have been closed with
small masonry blocks. This wall which surrounds the sphinx on all four sides
along with the northern quarry, gives good protection to rain runoff from the
plateau, and needs to be taken into account when it comes to the various
theories surrounding the erosion of the sphinx and the sphinx enclosure.
11
11
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-color-photo-00414912
In this view we can see the broad stairs leading down to the paved area in front
of the sphinx; a narrower flight of stairs can be seen to the right of it, which is
bordered by a mud brick wall. These steps which were discovered by Caviglia,
are believed to come from the Roman era.
12 12
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, color Photo 004149.
12
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-02377 13
In the above archive image looking north, we get a better view of the stairs, and
the paved area in front of the sphinx. Some of the mud brick northern enclosure
wall is visible. With what appears to be plaster traces still adhering to it: to the
left of this is a more modern barrage wall built by Bariaze to hold back the
desert during excavations. The walls and the steps have all been removed, again
without proper recording; the archive images are largely all we have to work
with. It is clear from the images that these broad steps were laid over the
northwest quadrant of the temple, moreover they cut through the rear wall of the
temple (which can be seen more clearly on the image on page 10); therefore, in
order to create these steps some of the masonry in the northwest corner would
have to be removed to allow the steps unimpeded flow down to the sphinx floor;
or the blocks had already been dislodged earlier, to join the others which we see
in the archive images.
13
13
From the floor of the sphinx enclosure we are looking east up the stairs, and
here we can better see the narrower flight of steps, which abut against the
northern enclosure wall. Looking through the archive images we appear to have
a strange mix of walls around the sphinx and the temple, of mud brick or small
masonry blocks. In the images overleaf, we can see what appears to be a
masonry wall running along the top of the temples south wall (arrowed in both
images) The top image appears to show the wall intact, whilst the lower shows
it partially dismantled; the question arises as to who built it? It appears neatly
constructed, and may have been a retaining wall for structures built on top of
the temple, of which some of the mud brick remains are visible. How Thutmose
found the temple is unknown, but the impression is that the temples had largely
been looted of their fine stone; for example the mighty wall we see on page 11,
by the gap of the two temples, might have protected some cladding of the valley
temple at this location, though none were found, suggesting that they had been
stripped away before Thutmose‟s time or by Thutmose.
14
14
15
Images can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, color Photos 004201 & 004189.
15
In the lower image on the previous page you can see how the broad stairs
appear to flow over some of the first course masonry of the temples rear wall
(The temple generally consists of three courses of limestone core masonry;
however, the rear/western part of the temple is reduced to two courses, on
account of the natural rock from the upper terrace being used to construct its
lower parts). On removal of these steps, what appear to be earlier steps were
discovered.
With the lower part of the stairs stripped away, we can see an earlier fight of
steps, between the marker poles above; either side of the poles we appear to
have cuttings made into the rear walls first masonry course to receive the
masonry of the later broad stairs. Lehner would comment;
“As the broad stairway and its mud foundation were removed, remains of a
smaller stairway were found underneath (PI. 2.48). Only the mortar, preserving
the pattern of the steps, remained of this earlier stairway; the steps had been
16
16
removed sometime prior to the construction of the broad stairway. The early
stairway was on line with the Sphinx, built into the west wall of the Sphinx
Temple just where an Old Kingdom core block was missing or had been cut
away. The width of the early stairway was about 2 m. On the south side of the
early stairway a pattern of steps was cut into the core block of the Sphinx
Temple wall for an width of .60 m (PI. 2.49) The steps cut into the large core
block more or less match the mud steps in the core block gap. The steps cut into
the core block may be part of the same stairway, slightly higher because the
rock of the coreblock sufficed as steps that were flush with those of laid
limestone slabs beside it. On the other hand, it could be a later stairway, also
missing, that was built at a slightly higher level than the mud and mortar steps.
Across the rest of the core block southward, the broad Roman Period steps that
Baraize removed left a shallower stepped pattern.”17
In the above archive image we can see the earlier steps, along with narrower
steps cut into the core block as described by Lehner above. These earlier steps
seem to lead to an earlier platform, which was also discovered under the later
17
Archaeology of an image, The Great Sphinx of Giza, Vol 1 1991. Pages 58-59
18
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, color Photos 004283.
17
broad stairs; finds in this location, such as an inscribed door jamb, suggested
that Thutmose IV may have been its creator.19
The earlier steps are shown on part

of Ricke‟s plan 1, and they seem
purposely positioned to be aligned
with the centre axis of the sphinx.
The paved area in front of the
sphinx also has a strip of paving,
creating a path towards the
sphinx‟s paws, and this can be
noted on the previous image on
page 17. Ricke would discount the
possibility that these steps could be
accessed from inside the temple.20
Whether any part of these
stairs can be dated earlier is
uncertain; for example, M&R would state; “A staircase consisting of only a few
steps about the centre of the west side, and probably original, seems to have
connected the open space in front of the Sphinx with the roof of the temple.
Another staircase, smaller and with steps of fine white limestone, which is
visible further to the north than the fìrst, is probably of a later date.”21 It could
be a possibility that the southern narrow strip, might be older and originally
connected to the temple roof, and then was subsequently utilised by Thutmose:
we may never know as these steps are largely disappeared along with the
platform.
Certainly it would appear unlikely that Thutmose would create a mighty
enclosure wall around the sphinx and not provide access to the enclosure and
the sphinx itself. How the enclosure wall which ran along the top of the temple
wall merged with the steps and platform is unknown; indeed, the height of the
enclosure wall (see page 9) seems well in excess of the platform found under
the Roman steps. It is often reported that the walls were created by Thutmose
IV, but can we be sure? Hassan merely reports that some 18 th dynasty pottery
was found embedded in the brick walls around the sphinx, and that some bricks
were stamped with the cartouche of Thutmose IV.22 However, Hassan only took
over operations from 1935, by which time Baraize had cleared the temples and
razed many walls and structures, which Hassan could not inspect. Indeed, there
is little context on were Hassan found this pottery and stamped bricks, as there
19
Ibid, pages 59-60
20
Der Harmachistempel des Chefren in Giseh, Heft 10, H.Ricke 1970, page 14-15
L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2, page 140
21
22
The Great Sphinx and its secrets, Hassan, 1953, pages 6-7
18
are numerous walls at different levels in and around the sphinx and temples at
different levels, and yet we do not know where he found this material.
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo 0238123
In the archive image above, we are looking south along the temples rear wall
with the north wall of the valley temple in the background. The rubble wall next
to the figure in the foreground, is the masonry sub foundation which supports
the mud brick wall, which has been removed when this image was taken (see
image on page 9, with mud brick on top). The wall was built on the megalithic
stones which remained on the temples west wall, and to the right we appear to
have large megalithic stones on the sphinx enclosure floor, which likely at one
time were part of the temples rear wall. In the foreground we appear to have a
finely laid masonry wall leading to the rubble wall; did this continue into the
rubble wall, or does it have a connection to the fine wall laid on top of the
temples south wall? Remnants of this wall can be seen on the image on page 10,
and given its proximity to the small steps; maybe the rubble/mud brick
enclosure wall gave way to finer masonry construction in the area of the earlier
steps and platform (see also image on page 17, were some of this masonry
appears to exist to the right of the steps.)
23
19
Erosion
There is much debate and disagreement among geologists about the processes
involved which give us the eroded landscape which we see above. In this
archive image we are looking down on the half cleared sphinx temple, and
beyond we see the heavily eroded southern and western enclosure walls; one
can also see an erosion channel on the floor of the enclosure. Many ideas have
been put forward to explain the erosion visible, such as high energy rain runoff
from the plateau; whilst others suggest chemical weathering, wet sand, interflow
etc. But as I have already mentioned in part II, the best theory that explains the
visible remains is that proposed by Colin Reader;25 indeed, on closer inspection
it seems to me that we have two different landscapes of erosion. The first and
more eroded landscape is the sphinx and its enclosure; whilst the less eroded
landscape is connected with the temples and the lower terrace.
24
25
His articles are freely available on academia.edu
20
Image courtesy of Colin Reader
In this view we are looking into the southwest corner of the sphinx enclosure.
Reader would note how the western end of the south wall was more eroded than
the eastern end, and that the more eroded sections southern end coincided with
the major fissure which ran through the sphinx itself and the enclosure floor.26
From this boundary we see the start of the erosion channel which extends to the
rear wall of the temple, and this channel can also be made out on the image
above, and the archive image on the previous page. At the base of the far corner
we can see some of the harder member I rock exposed, which also shows sign
of erosion. The beds of the plateau slope somewhat from the northwest to the
south east, and this results in a greater exposure of member I beds at the base of
the enclosures north wall (Member II rock, is a softer limestone and is the major
member visible in the enclosure and in the body of the sphinx; whilst member
III is a hard limestone which accounts for the head of the sphinx).
Response to Vandercruys “The Sphinx: dramatising data ...and dating” www.PalArch.nl. Archaeology of
26
Egypt/Egyptology
21
The image left27 gives a good overview
of the eroded features in the sphinx
enclosure. The harder member I rock,
due to the dip of the strata is mainly
visible at the base of the sphinx
enclosures north wall; but even here we
see significant signs of erosion;
especially when we compare the
condition of the same member rock,
which is present on the lower terrace.
The image below is the degraded
member I rock looking west from the
corner of Amenhotep II‟s temple.
When the sphinx temple was widened,
the northern enclosure wall adjacent to
the sphinx temple had to be cut into, to
make room for the new extension. This
new boundary for the northern
enclosure wall was to be extended
along the upper terrace, but as in the temple, the work seems to have stopped, at
the point that Reader shows below.
27
Ibid, page 2
22
In the above early aerial shot of the sphinx and its enclosure, we can see the dip
of the strata more clearly (the eroded member I of the previous image is buried
beneath the walls, which are quite close to the sphinx; though part of the
original north wall can be seen in the northwest corner of the enclosure). This
early image shows the sphinx temple still covered; though we can make out the
mud brick wall on top of the temples rear wall: this wall curves at the southeast
corner, and part of it can be seen running along the top of the southern enclosure
wall. It is likely this wall continued along the top of the southern enclosure wall
to join the remnant we see emerging at the southwest corner; but was removed
during excavations. We can also see how the brick wall runs along the top of the
western enclosure wall (a wavy brick wall set lower would connect to the
western enclosure wall, and run east (see part 2 page 24) part of which still
survives today, and is visible on fig 1 on the previous page as a rectangular
outline, and in the lower image we can see part of it at the extreme top of
image).
These myriad walls around the sphinx enclosure along with the northern
quarry behind the sphinx would offer protection against rain runoff from the
plateau.
23
As well as the previously mentioned wavy wall which ran east from the western
enclosure wall and protected the northern flank; we also have walls closer to the
sphinx, as the above archive image shows. These walls north of the sphinx are
similar to that displayed on the rear wall of the temple, in having a sub
foundation of small masonry blocks. The mud brick wall next to the scaffold is
quite close to the sphinx; whilst the other mud brick wall is set further north and
appears to be anchored into an eroded crevice of the member I rock. The walls
east of this have all been removed and no longer exist, and part of it appears
modern; probably a barrage wall to retain the desert during excavations.
28
24
Image courtesy of Isida Project
In this modern view we can see the surviving portion of mud brick wall
anchored to the member I northern enclosure wall on left of image; the rest of
the walls on the previous image have been removed. It is interesting to note how
weathered this northern enclosure wall is; especially since it is a harder member
I rock. To the right of the sphinx at the base of the southern enclosure wall, we
can also see a lesser portion of member I rock, and again showing significant
erosion. Immediately in front of the northern enclosure wall we can see a faint
line running east-west along the floor of the enclosure; could this be the faint
outline of another wall? Whether we can lay all these myriad walls at the door
of Thutmose IV is debatable; many were destroyed before Hassan took over
excavations, and no real detail is given as to where he found the stamped bricks.
The veneration of the sphinx likely ebbed and flowed until Roman times, with
further modifications being carried out on the complex through various
dynasties.
25
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo 0237229
In the archive we can see further examples of brick wall, as shown above. This
example appears very close to hindquarters of the sphinx; the masonry box
attached to the hindquarters can just be made out next to the walkway. This
masonry box is visible in the archive image on page 24, and on the modern
image on page 25. On closer inspection this wall seems to have a base of small
masonry, followed by a portion of mud brick; then two courses of larger
masonry, which is followed be yet more brick. It is a major blow that so many
walls have been destroyed without being recorded.
The image above shows the limestone cladding against the heavily eroded
core of the sphinx; the erosion visible on the sphinx beneath the masonry
cladding is quite extensive (see part II).
29
26
When it comes to the lower terrace we appear to have a much different erosion
landscape; Reader would point out the good condition of the member I rock
found in the corridor left beyond the north wall of the sphinx temple. In the
image above we can see the neat vertical face of the member I rock on the right
and the core blocks of the sphinx temples north wall on the right; at the end of
this corridor we can see the well preserved face of the upper terrace, and above
this, material to support the corner of Amenhotep‟s temple. The question to be
answered is why do we have such a different pattern of erosion compared to the
member I wall visible in the upper terrace (see image on page 25).
It may be the case that before the temple extension, the eroded northern
wall which we see on page 25 continued onto the lower terrace, and then when
the decision to extend the temple was taken, that old wall had to be cut into to
make way for the new location of the temples north wall. This new cutting into
the member I bank would mean that the alignment of this new cutting would be
further north than the original wall, and it seems that a decision was taken to
continue this new cutting along the upper terrace to bring this into alignment,
and that this work abruptly stopped. However, such a scenario would suggest
that a previous eroded wall would predate Khafre and run counter to the
narrative by Egyptology that Khafre, was solely responsible for the sphinx and
temple.
27
In the above image looking north along the east facade of the temple, we can
see the member I north wall extend further east (a tomb has been cut into it), but
even in this more exposed location, its condition is still markedly better than
that displayed in the upper terrace.
Further disparity between the erosion landscapes of the upper and lower
terraces can also be found in the corridor between the valley temple and the
sphinx temple. Here, the harder member rock again seems in rude health;
especially when one considers that the erosion channel on the floor of the
sphinx enclosure would tend to direct any rain runoff down the space between
the temples. In this area chisel marks can still be seen on both member I and
member II rock.
28
In the above archive image I have placed arrows were we appear to have traces
of chisel marks. This view is at the base of the north wall of the valley temple
(as discussed in part III, some 18m of natural rock is incorporated into the base
of the north wall at its northwest corner). The upper arrow points at some marks
on the softer member II rock; this cutting into the rock was likely to facilitate a
granite casing block. The lower arrow appears to be in a niche cut into member
30
29
I rock; the steps are modern; whilst the square cuttings in member II may be
contemporary.
In this more modern and slightly different view, we can see the member II
cutting arrowed, whilst further marks can been seen at the bottom of the niche:
the vertical wall on the right is the end of the southern enclosure wall. In
comparison to the member II rock visible on the upper terrace, the rock present
in the corridor between the two temples is in much better condition. Yes the
wall would have been covered in granite cladding which would protect it,
though this would likely have been robbed in short order; and regardless of
which theory one supports to explain the erosion processes which create the
landscapes we see, surely the processes should be valid for both terraces.
30
In the above archive image I have zoomed in on the corridor area between the
two temples. Here we can note the good condition of the vertical face of the
upper terrace. Behind this, we have what appears to be a stack of white
limestone blocks at the base of the vertical end of the southern enclosure wall.
At the base of the north wall of the valley temple, numerous crisp cuttings
abound on the floor, whose function may be related to the cladding of the
temples wall. Like the corridor north of the sphinx temple, this area between the
31
31
two temples appears in rude health compared to the rock members in the upper
terrace. Any theory to explain the erosion processes at work in this complex
needs to explain the erosion disparities between the two terraces.
Another issue of concern to me is the disparity between the erosion visible on

the sphinx temple core blocks and the erosion on the sphinx itself. We are after
all, often told that these large core blocks were extracted from the enclosure in
which the sphinx sits, and yet the temple blocks appear in rude health compared
to the sphinx itself; why is this? The exterior walls of the temple show no
evidence of casing to protect them, whilst the sphinx has numerous layers of
fine masonry cladding, with the earliest being the large phase I blocks, which at
one time was thought to be from the Old Kingdom (see part III). Lehner would
describe the core of the sphinx in his dissertation.
“The upper part of the Sphinx core body must have been exposed for a long
period without a masonry cover after the ancient layers masonry fell away
(near the end of the Roman era?). Yet, parts of the core body under the Phase I
casing also show extreme differential weathering. These surfaces could not
32
32
have weathered once the Phase I casing was built over them. But there is not a
much greater degree of weathering in the upper part of the core body than in
those parts covered by Phase I veneer. It must be the case that the greater part
of the Sphinx core body, fashioned from Member II, weathered more from the
time that the Sphinx was carved until Phase I than it did from Phase I until now.
The weathered recesses in the core body are not appreciably deeper where
Phase I veneer is gone than where the core has been protected since the Phase I
encasement.”33 He would go on to state; “We have to conclude that the phase I
casing restored a Sphinx body when the section of the body carved from
member II had severely eroded”34
This discovery of significant erosion under the large phase 1 blocks, led to a re-
evaluation of phase 1 blocks being from the old kingdom. As Given that it is
accepted by Egyptology that the Sphinx was created by Khafre, then it follows
that these phase one blocks cannot be Old Kingdom, as this would imply that
Khafre cased a very weathered body: a body which should be freshly cut and
unweathered, and so this casing has been moved to the 18 th dynasty; and yet
maybe the original assessment of these blocks may have been correct. Hawass
would state;
“At the very base of the Sphinx, where we have gained a good look at the
mother rock, there are extremely large limestone blocks, similar to those from
Turah in their quality, that cover the bedrock and form a casing or coating over
the Sphinx. Since the hard Member I mother rock does not weather, its rough
surface underneath these large blocks must have been left as we see it by the
original Sphinx builders. It was also in this condition when the casing of the
very large blocks just mentioned was added. The conclusion follows that these
large blocks belong to an Old Kingdom casing that was done by Khafra‟s
workmen in order to complete the modelling of the lion body, since the poor
quality limestone of member II, higher up and comprising most of the core
body, would not suffice for fine modelling. The Sphinx architect tried to
complete the mother rock sculpture by adding stones, exactly as the builders did
with the pyramids, mastabas, and temples of this time.”35
Certainly one should be able to change ones view as evidence becomes
available; but has any real new evidence emerged to discount these phase 1
blocks as Old Kingdom, other than an aversion to countenance that the structure
might have predated Khafre. But the problem remains on how we explain the
relative good condition of the temple core blocks, in comparison to the core of
the sphinx and enclosure, especially when we are told that most of these blocks
come from the same strata as the sphinx itself; why should the temple blocks be
33
Archaeology of an image: the Great Sphinx of Giza. Lehner Dissertation, Vol 1, 1991, page 213
34
Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, Lehner & Hawass, page 231
35
The Great Sphinx at Giza: Date and Function, Z.Hawass, Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia, Vol II,
page 179
33
relatively immune? As we can see from the image on page 8, the rear wall core
blocks are relatively in good condition; indeed, further blocks, which we can see
inside the temple, appear in good condition. Given the erosion channel on the
floor of the sphinx, one would think that significant rain runoff would be
directed at the rear wall, and cause significant erosion: likewise, runoff should
be expected to flow down the corridor between the temples and leave traces,
which appear absent. It would be worthwhile to explore this area more; for
example, are the blocks of the rear wall, resting on top of a pre-existing erosion
channel?
It is generally assumed that the core blocks which make up the valley and
sphinx temples came from inside the enclosure; but I was generally surprised to
find that we have little data to examine, to determine if this is indeed the case.
The massive excavations of the 1920‟s and 30‟s of the sphinx enclosure and
temple were sadly never properly recorded or published, and unfortunately this
practice of archaeology, with no detailed publishing is still much in practice
today. The idea that the temple blocks originate from the sphinx enclosure
comes from the work of Mark lehner and the geologist Thomas Aigner in 1980.
Lehner would state; “We believed that the Egyptians created the Sphinx and
Khafre Valley and Sphinx Temples as part of a single quarry-construction
sequence. From bedrock strata corresponding to the Sphinx head, they took
megaliths for building the Khafre Valley Temple. As they quarried deeper, they
cut a U-shaped ditch – leaving a core from which they sculpted the Sphinx –
and removed blocks from these lower layers to build the Sphinx temple.
We had intended to publish this work, but did not do so. And so we work
thirty-seven years later to present the information. Here I summarize our
method, broad conclusions, the significance of this information for dating the
sphinx, and how revisiting this old study adds a piece to the picture puzzle of
how the Egyptians built the Sphinx and Pyramids.”36
As the above highlighted sentence shows, nothing was published on this work,
and all we have is limited summaries of their findings. Given the disagreement
found amongst geologists as to the processes which best describe the erosion in
relation to the sphinx and its enclosure; would it be fair to say that if a detailed
publication had been made, that other geologists may have come to a different
viewpoint on the presented evidence? We simply do not know; without a
detailed publication of their methods and findings, we cannot test the validity of
their conclusions, and so we are left to trust summaries as conclusive findings.
However, as a layman, I do treat such summaries as suspect, as without detailed
evidence, one cannot make an informed decision; in short, one has to trust and
believe in the opinion of the author: even though other experts in the field, had
36
AERA Giza Plateau mapping project, 2016-2017 Annual Report, M. Lehner, pages 95-96
34
they the full access to the material, may have arrived at a totally different
opinion. I often find it frustrating in trying to obtain data on various sites, and
too often many sites never get published. Sometimes this can be down to
exorbitant publishing costs and an institutions reluctance to pay, and so we are
often reduced to a few pages of summary in a journal, or nothing being
published at all. Indeed, I often wonder how the peer review process deals with
this situation; without full details of the excavation, how can one judge the
opinion given? Yes, Lehner is a respected archaeologist in his field, but this
should not make him immune from providing detailed evidence to enable others
to check the validity of his opinion.
Lehner and Aigner‟s work mainly focus on the limestone core blocks of the
sphinx temple; whilst the core blocks of the valley temple appear unknown with
any certainty, and here in their summary, when it comes to describing these
blocks and possible origin, they use the words „tentative‟, and „hypothesized‟.37
So for the valley temple core blocks we have no scientific evidence to
determine their origin, other than a hypothesis that they could have come from
the head layers of the sphinx.
When it comes to the core blocks of the sphinx temple we are told that
notes were taken of lithic qualities and fossils of each block and that these
blocks were assigned to one of seven types, lettered from A to G. These were
subsequently colour coded to conform to similar geological layers found on the
sphinx and its enclosure.38 They deduced that most of the temples core blocks
were of type A, which conform to the lower chest layers of the sphinx; though
they do admit that the builders could have exploited these same layers anywhere
in the sphinx amphitheatre.39
In lehner‟s summary he produces an image,40 which is a modern
viewpoint of the archive image on page 32. In the modern view some extra
blocks have been placed on top of the rear wall of the temple; these and the
other core blocks which make up the rear wall of the temple are labelled type A.
One might accept that the type A blocks conform to the same geological layers
on the sphinx, but can this be proof that this is their origin? It would seem
unlikely that the geological layers exhibited on the sphinx and its enclosure are
unique, and that these beds could have extended in other directions outside of
the enclosure; have other locations been sought? Certainly if we accept the
Egyptology viewpoint that Khafre created the sphinx, then it would be a logical
conclusion to expect the sphinx temple blocks to be extracted from the
enclosure. However, if the sphinx and its enclosure predate the 4th dynasty
constructions there would be no material to extract from the sphinx enclosure,
37
Ibid, page 103, fig 13. Page 106
38
Ibid, pages 100-101
39
Ibid, page 102
40
Ibid, page 102, fig 12
35
and in this scenario the blocks for the sphinx temple and the valley temple
would have to be sourced elsewhere.
The above scenario is clearly at odds with the narrative espoused by
Egyptology, and yet we appear to have a clear disconnect in the erosion found
on the temple and lower terrace, to that found on the sphinx and its enclosure.
The sphinx enclosure is made of four parts; the heavily eroded southern and
western walls and the eroded north wall made of the harder member I rock. The
final wall is the rear wall of the sphinx temple, made from blocks, we are told,
which were extracted from the sphinx enclosure, and yet this extracted material
appears impervious to the erosion processes, which effect the other three walls.
Regardless of which theory and geologist one supports (it‟s likely many
processes to varying degrees have created this landscape), I cannot find a
satisfactory answer to explain these two distinct landscapes, and so I think it is a
valid inquiry to question if the blocks in the temple, did originate from inside
the enclosure.
In this view we can see the eroded member I rock of the north wall on left of
image, and on top of it we can see some surviving ancient small masonry/mud
brick wall. Why are the softer member II blocks on the temples rear wall
unaffected? Today, many restorations from Baraize‟s time have largely repaired
36
the sphinx; however, the archive images show many breaches behind the larger
phase I cladding of the sphinx, even at lower levels that show significant
erosion of the core body (and confirmed by lehner‟s statement on page 32-33).
Though originally thought to be Old Kingdom blocks, they are now assigned to
18th dynasty; but even if this is the case and these blocks were fitted some 1000
years after Khafre‟s reign (of which a large proportion still exist on the lower
part of the sphinx) they would afford some protection to the core body to the
present day, or some 3500 years. In contrast, the same stone which makes up
the rear wall of the temple, shows no evidence of ever being covered in
cladding, and yet compared to the erosion found on the core of the sphinx, it is
relatively untouched.
In the view above we are looking into a later period (26th dynasty) shaft tomb,
with Khufu‟s pyramid in the background; often referred to as Campbell‟s tomb,
a short distance behind the sphinx. Such shafts allow us to glimpse the strata in
a particular location, and like the strata inside the sphinx enclosure it displays
softer and harder layers. Given its close proximity to the sphinx can we suggest
that the beds visible in the sphinx enclosure extend into this area of the plateau?
37
The early aerial image above shows the close proximity of Campbell‟s tomb.
This shaft is sunk in the sizeable quarry north of Khafre‟s causeway. The quarry
itself is not without controversy (see part II); but could this quarry be an
alternate source for many of the core blocks found in the sphinx temple?
I did pose the question to Colin Reader, as to the possibility that the sphinx
temple (ST) core blocks may have originated elsewhere, and he was kind
enough to provide the following reply;
“A great deal of work has been done to corelate the masonry of the Sphinx
Temple (ST) with the various limestone beds that were exposed during the
excavation of the Sphinx. The intention of this work was to demonstrate not only
that the Sphinx Enclosure is the source of the masonry of the ST but also that
the ST was built at the same time as the Sphinx (see Aerogram 18-1). These
studies involved identifying the key geological characteristics of the quarried
limestone blocks used to build the ST and then matching each category of block
with layers of in-situ strata. What this exercise identified was that most of the
masonry used to build the ST corresponded with the layers of limestone that had
been exposed when the Sphinx had been quarried. In addition however, some
categories of masonry were identified which were not quarried from around the
Sphinx and must have been from other areas of the Giza plateau.
38
Although this work is extremely useful, it has to be recognised that it has its
limitations. The strata exposed by the excavation of the Sphinx is not limited to
just that location and extends for some distance south and south west of the
Sphinx. Although no detailed geological mapping of Giza has been published, it
is likely that the beds exposed at the Sphinx run through the Central Field area
extending at least as far as the tomb of Khentkawes. So although it is possible to
link a given category of ST masonry with particular beds exposed in the Sphinx
Enclosure, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that the source of the
masonry was the same limestone beds that are exposed some distance to the
south and south west. Very often it requires the chance identification of a fossil
or some other very specific feature in both the masonry and the quarry site to be
absolutely sure of the source of a particular block of stone. Without such
specific evidence, it is only possible to generalise about the source of masonry.”
As indicated in reader‟s response above, he mentioned other masonry found in

the sphinx temple, which appear to come from other areas of the plateau. These
blocks which appear alien to the sphinx enclosure have been labelled Type B
and D by lehner. In his summary, lehner has a paragraph entitled „Type B and D
blocks: Brought from Afar.” Here he states;
“Type B and D blocks show up at regular intervals within the core walls (fig
15). They seem to have come from the quarries towards the Khentkawes
Monument, southwest of the Sphinx, at the far end of a diagonal one can draw
from the Sphinx across the northeastern quadrant of a greater circle of
quarrying in the central field of the Giza Plateau (figs, 16, 17). The bedrock
strata here are much higher than the sphinx head layers, not in absolute
elevation, rather in the sequence of the natural limestone strata.
The spacing and fairly regular dispersal through the temple of Type B
and D core blocks (fig 15) could indicate two things: 1) The builders stockpiled
these blocks and brought them into the walls whenever there was a hiatus in the
quarrying, dragging, and placing of the regular A blocks; 2) because they
quarried Type B and D blocks from much further away, it took them much
longer to haul the blocks to the temple site.”41
The number of these blocks, whilst not given, appears considerable from
Lehner‟s fig 15, and indeed some of them are of impressive size; especially
when you consider the hauling distance, and the unknown route by which they
were transported.
41
Ibid, page 105. Figs 15 & 16 are on page 104, whilst fig 17 is on page 105
39
The archive image above shows the large stone at the southeast corner, and one
of the largest in the temple. This stone is one of the type B stones showed on
lehner‟s fig 15. This monster is close to 8m long, and a rough calculation
indicates that it is around 60 cubic metres, or some 150 metric tonnes.
In the view left we are

looking at the east end of
the above block. This huge
block rests against the
south wall of the sphinx
temples first phase,
according to Ricke (see
plan 2 on page 5). The
blocks on top of this are
classed as type C, which
relates to the upper chest
of the sphinx.
Image courtesy of Greg Slater
42
40
Looking along the corridor between the two temples, we can see the west end of
our large type B corner block, on the right (compare to the archive image on the
previous page); the block at the temples southwest corridor is a type A. lehner‟s
fig 15, suggests further type B blocks are in this south wall, but their location is
uncertain as he only provides a plan, so it‟s difficult to establish which course is
intended. Some 173 blocks were recorded, but as we don‟t have detailed
elevations of each wall, internally and externally, it‟s difficult to obtain a clear
picture of their locations. The granite blocks stored on the floor of the corridor,
are cornice blocks recovered during excavations.
Though the data on both temples provided by Egyptology is sparse; I
would concur with them that both temples are consisted with 4 th dynasty
architecture. That said, I have major reservations about the sphinx and its
enclosure, and here I have to conclude that this area predates the accepted 4 th
dynasty. In this scenario it would be quite possible that an earlier structure was
founded in front of the sphinx; said structure, may have had various phases until
the arrival of the 4th dynasty kings, who could have modified what was there, or
demolished what was there, for something new, and possibly recycle some
materials: many permutations are possible.
41
To help explain the good condition of the natural rock under the northwest
corner of the valley temple, it may have been the case that an older sphinx
enclosure extended further east as shown in the highlighted area above. In part
III, I showed how the angle of the valley temples north wall and causeway
differ, and that the surviving south enclosure wall converges with the north wall
roughly where the rock stops under the north wall, at approximately 18m from
the rear wall of the valley temple. In locating his Valley temple, Khafre could
have utilised the old roadway on top of the southern wall for his causeway, and
cut back the eroded face of the originally extended southern wall. How far the
southern wall may have extended is unknown; likewise the current vertical face
of the upper terrace may not be original. An earlier eroded face of the upper
terrace may have been cut back; again the permutations are many.
One might argue that the disparity in erosion between the lower and
upper terraces, and the temple core blocks, could be put down to the sphinx
enclosure being more exposed to the elements than the temple and lower
terrace. Though Thutmose would build a protective wall around the sphinx, the
temple appears to have been left buried and later structures built on top of it. To
some extent this might protect the temple core blocks underneath; however, the
rear wall of the temple would be left exposed, and these appear no worse than
the blocks which would be buried. It might be fair to say that from the time of
Khafre to Thutmose that the sphinx enclosure may have been filled with sand
for most of this period; probably from the collapse of the Old Kingdom; but
then should we not expect the sand to protect the upper terrace enclosure walls
and the sphinx? Instead we have heavily eroded walls, and as the surviving
brick wall, which still survives on top of the harder member I rock, (see page
42
36) and if we accept that Thutmose IV built this wall on top of the eroded
northern enclosure wall, then all this erosion must have occurred in the interval
between Khafre and Thutmose. This seems unlikely, as it‟s hard to see how this
harder member I rock, could erode so rapidly inside an enclosure, which for the
most part, must have been filled with sand in the interval between Khafre and
Thutmose. Of course in the heated debate between geologists, some will state
that chemical weathering via wet sand, or rising ground water can explain the
erosion; but if this is the case, surely these processes would affect the rock on
the lower terrace just as much?
The only logical explanation which seems to fit the available evidence is
that proposed by Colin Reader,43 and that rain runoff from the plateau is largely
responsible for the erosion landscape. This has not found favour with
Egyptology as it suggests an earlier date for the sphinx; but as a layman it seems
to be the only explanation that makes sense of the landscape. How early is a job
for science to determine; but for runoff to reach the enclosure walls, it had to be
before Thutmose erected the walls around the enclosure, and before the northern
quarry as this would largely collect any runoff.
The landscape of an earlier sphinx would be unlike anything we see in the
heavily quarried Giza plateau today. The ridge of rock on which Khafre‟s
causeway sits atop, may have been a broad roadway leading up to a highpoint
on the plateau (Khafre‟s Pyramid base is some 10m higher than Khufu‟s).
Originally there would be no quarries north or south of it, and rain runoff would
be unimpeded as it followed the slope of the plateau, and found an easy outlet in
the ditch which surrounded the sphinx. The north and southern enclosure walls
may have extended further east, with the southern wall supporting the broad
roadway further east. A lower terrace may have been cut which held an earlier
temple. If this was the scenario, then Khufu and Khafre clearly knew the sphinx
when they decided to build at Giza, and clearly such a monument would not go
unnoticed; but it also poses a problem on what to do with such an eroded
monument. It would seem unlikely that the earlier structure would sport the
current head, which many have commented as being somewhat out of
proportion to its body, and some have suggested that it originally sported the
head of a lion, which was recarved by one of the 4th dynasty kings.
By subsuming the earlier eroded monument into the 4th dynasty complex
they could utilise elements of it into their complex, and when Khafre decided to
build his valley temple he cut into the end of the older roadway, and used some
of the natural rock to support the temples inclined passage, which displays a
steeper angle than the causeway. Likewise, whatever earlier structure may have
been in front of the sphinx, elements could be absorbed or recycled into a new
sphinx temple. Such a scenario could explain the disparity in erosion between
the upper and lower terraces and their temples.
43
Others have also suggested an earlier age for the sphinx and water erosion.
43
The Temple
The above schematic view gives a rough view of the temple without the
masonry. The symmetrical chambers at the rear of the temple have been cut into
the upper terrace, and numerous sockets are found on the floor, the square ones
are thought to contain granite pillars, with the larger rectangular ones containing
seated statues: cuttings for two drainage channels are also present. Economy of
rock cutting seems to appear on the rock supporting the temples north and south
walls, as judging from the spot heights from Ricke‟s plan and some images,
they appear higher than the internal floor of the temple. This economy of rock
cutting is a common feature in Egyptian architecture, as this step in the floor
would be hid by thick alabaster paving or wall cladding. It is very difficult to
get a detailed view of the remains of this temple and the position of the various
elements, due to the lack of detailed data; moreover, the temple is off limits to
tourists, so in many aspects, it feels like groping around in the dark.
A significant amount of member I rock must have been excavated from
the upper and lower terraces; though its presence in the temple, judging from
lehner‟s coloured diagrams, is extremely rare. As previously mentioned, the
rock strata slopes on the plateau, and in the above schematic I have set the
height difference between the terraces at 2.5m, and the terraces themselves are
44
well levelled.44 The amount of excavated member 1 rock, especially in the
lower terrace, can be best judged by the smooth north wall in the corridor north
of the temple (see pages 27 & 28), here Ricke gives the height of the wall as
some 5m. So a huge amount of member I rock has been extracted and gone
missing: just taking the foot print of the temple for example, at a height of 2.5m
would entail some 2300 cubic metres of rock to extracted; and to this we have
to add the not inconsiderable amount from the upper terrace, along with the rock
east of the temple.
In the above schematic, we have a cut away of the temple up to the level of the
upper terrace. Like the valley temple the east facade has two entrances, which
are symmetrical; cuttings visible on the core stones suggest that they had started
to clad the interior of the temple in granite, though there is no evidence that the
exterior was started. Ricke would report that had the front of the temple been
clad with granite, its facade would align with the cladded valley temple;
however, the rear walls of the temples does not follow this alignment, as Ricke
reports that the unclad wall of the sphinx temple aligns with the cladded rear
wall of the valley temple.45
Starting at the entrances, Ricke reports that traces on the rock floor
suggested that the entrances were originally 3 cubits wide, but were widened to
4 cubits.46 Immediately in front of each entrance are two chapels which he gives
as 4 cubits wide and 3 cubits deep; these chapels were slightly raised of the
44
Archaeology of an image: the Great Sphinx of Giza. Lehner Dissertation, Vol 1, 1991, page 135. Lehner would
give the height between terraces as 2.62m, and on page 138 he records the good levelling.
45
46
Ibid, page 13
45
floor and closed with double doors: Ricke thought that they would have
contained statues. They may have some relation to the high up niches found in
the entrance halls of the valley temple; certainly they would be well illuminated
by the morning sun, with the entrance doors open. Between the entrances and
the chapels we have two chambers in the direction of the temples east-west axis,
and according to Ricke‟s plan the southernmost chamber appears deeper, with
both displaying some surviving granite cladding: these are often reported as
porter rooms and appear to have no doors.
These elements connect to a vestibule which have a doorway on its west
side; this gives access to a short corridor heading west, with another doorway at
its end, which opens out onto an ambulatory and access to the courtyard.
Continuing along the north and south sides of the ambulatory we find two
further doorways, which give access to two narrow rooms, whose lower parts
are cut from the natural rock. On the east-west temple axis we have two
symmetrical niches on the west and east sides of the temple. At first glance we
appear to have a similar design to that found in Khafre‟s pyramid temple;
indeed, Ricke would comment that both temple courtyards had the same width:
though as I showed in Part I, these calculations appear in error.
According to Ricke the temple had two building phases, with the first phase
plan as shown above; this differs from the previous image in that the square
pillars which flank the north and south sides of the central court being omitted.
The red area above would align with the original eroded north wall of the
sphinx enclosure. The second phase consisted of extending the north and south
temple walls to allow room for the pillars; this would require the removal of the
red portion. The green masonry is part of the enclosure wall for the valley
46
temple. There is some uncertainty on this enclosure wall, as Ricke would
suggest that originally it would extend all the way to the upper terrace and then
turn south to connect to the valley temples north wall.
From Ricke‟s publication we have his

fig 2 left, (The highlighted red areas are
the drainage channels). Ricke would
see the valley temple completed along
with its enclosure wall before the start
of the sphinx temple, as shown left. In
this diagram he has drawn in the
drainage channels, which seems
strange; on these channels he states:
“In two places in the temple there are
drains for water, both of which seem to
be older than the Harmachis (Sphinx)
temple, so they belong to facilities on
the once free lower terrace that have
otherwise disappeared without a
trace.”47 These drains will be discussed
in more detail later.
From Ricke‟s plan 1, we can see the

southeast corner of the sphinx temple.
The enclosure wall no longer exists,
and we only have the depression in the
ground to highlight its presence. I have
highlighted this depression in green,
and we can see that it lines up with the
south wall (highlighted in yellow) of
the temples first phase: Ricke would
report that this first phase wall was also
parallel to the valley temples north
wall.48 Ricke would state that this first
phase wall stood on the point of the
earlier enclosure wall, as shown in fig 2
above; however, the evidence for this
earlier enclosure wall is not clear, as it
could equally be construed that the
47
Ibid, page 15
48
Ibid, page 9-10
47
enclosure wall originally terminated against the phase 1 wall.49 It appears that
Ricke has assumed that a depression in the rock, at the western end of the
corridor, against the vertical face of the upper terrace, would be part of the
original enclosure wall.
This other depression between the two

temples, I have also highlighted in green
(the yellow highlight is the southern
drain channel); this depression is not as
wide as that found at the southeast
corner. I have overlaid some vertical
blue lines to show how some of the
architectural elements, such as the
pillars have been adapted at the southern
end of the temple to adhere to the
angled south wall. This border between
the upper and lower terrace seems to
have been cut perpendicular to the
valley temples north wall, and the
dotted line above in Ricke‟s plan,
highlights the course of the upper
terrace as it goes through the temple.
As Ricke reports in his work the
accessibility to the upper/sphinx terrace
remains an unsolved problem, as there
appears no obvious connection to the
sphinx terrace from the temple itself. He
even suggested the possibility that
access to the sphinx terrace may have
been unimportant, as the sphinx may
have been viewed less as an idol to be
worshipped, and more as a determinant
of the whole complex.50 He would also
state that the most likely assumption
was that access to the upper terrace was
through the corridor between the two temples and that non existent steps or
ramp may have led to the upper terrace, and that the old enclosure wall which
barred access to the upper terrace, may have been demolished for this reason.51
49
This question of whether the enclosure wall originally continued under the temple was discussed by Reader,
in ‘Further considerations on development at Giza before the 4 Dynasty’ www.PalArch.nl, archaeology of
th
Egypt/Egyptology, 3,2, (2006), pages 20-21

50
51
Ibid, page 15
48
In the above view we are looking at the vertical face of the upper terrace,
between the two temples; a small granite block sits on the floor, and this block
can be seen on the previous plan, shaded next to the green depression. Spot
heights from Ricke‟s plan give the top of this granite block as 160 and the floor
of the depression as 154, a difference of 6 cm. The step here is not a great
height, compared to the height displayed inside the temple, which is as much as
2.6m high; whilst the step above is about 1m less. This disparity is because the
temple floor has been cut down to a lower level; for example, from Ricke‟s plan
the next spot height after the green depression is 166; whilst the nearest spot
height on the temple floor is 87, a difference of 79cm. Indeed, looking at the
spot heights along the corridor they show the corridor to gradually slope down
to 117, or a difference of 49 cm for the length of the corridor.
It would seem very strange that no access be given to the upper terrace,
and that an enclosure wall was built across this face to block access; so I feel it
is not unreasonable to suggest that this depression in front of this face contained
fine masonry steps for priests to access the upper terrace. A further clue that
access to the corridor was important might be seen in the placement of statues in
front of the valley temple.
49
The above image is a part of M&R‟s TAV14, showing the corridor between the
two temples; the yellow highlighted areas are imprints in the pavement in front
of the valley temple, which are thought to have contained sphinx statues,
flanking the entrance into the valley temple. It can be noticed that the statue
base next to the corridor is displaced further east than the other; this seems to be
to allow access to the corridor, for if it matched the other base it would appear
to restrict access to the corridor (the displacement of this statue is also noted on
Holscher‟s drawing of the valley temple). Would one go to this trouble if the
corridor was a dead end? While this might provide access to the upper terrace
for priests emerging from the valley temple; it would seem that the enclosure
wall joining the southeast corner of the sphinx temple prevents access to this
corridor for priests of the sphinx temple. However, we have another corridor on
the north side of the sphinx temple, which could have provided access to the
upper terrace and in this location Ricke would mention traces on top of the
temples core wall, which he thought may have been for the insertion of a
wooden ceiling that could have turned the corridor into a magazine.52
Clearly the unfinished nature of the sphinx temple, along with its ruinous
remains makes reconstruction very problematic as to the architect‟s intents. For
example, was the north wall to be clad in granite? If it was, then the available
space for a path would be reduced; by scale rule the current north corridor is
about 2.5m wide; but even if we take 1m of this for cladding, we would still
have a sufficient path. So it‟s possible that both temples had their own
individual access to the upper terrace. The northern corridor is not as sloped as
the southern corridor between the temples; according to Ricke‟s plan 1, the spot
height at its west end is 136, reducing to 128 at its east end, a fall of only 8cm.
52
Ibid, pages 19-20
50
In the above view we are looking south along the courtyard pillars towards the
south wall of the sphinx temple. The white arrows denote the top of the natural
rock on which the core masonry rests, and this is generally the procedure
throughout the temple, and sensible economy of rock cutting. After the core
masonry was laid, the floor of the temple was cut down up to 60cm according to
Ricke; though this depth of cutting reduces somewhat as one goes further east
and southeast, due to the slope of the terrace.53 This exposed rock at the base of
the walls would not be seen when the alabaster paving slabs or the granite
cladding was fitted. The south wall above is the phase 2 wall, which was pushed
back, and some of these blocks may have originally been part of the phase 1
wall. The phase 1 wall, would likely also sit atop the natural rock (as this can be
seen on the phase 1 north wall), with the floor cut down as above; however,
after its removal, the rock on which it originally sat would have to be dressed
down to align with the phase 2 wall, and so any evidence of an earlier enclosure
or phase 1 wall would be lost in the affected area. To the left of the courtyard
pillars, we can see the socket holes for the square pillars.
53
Ibid, page 6
51
In the above view we are in the corridor between the temples looking at the rear
of the south wall, and the vertical face of the upper terrace. The core blocks
appear well smoothed and in good condition, with notches visible on their lower
edges; though generally well smoothed, it‟s difficult to imagine that the
builder‟s would be content with these blocks being the final finish, if granite
cladding was not intended. These notches can also be seen in the large masonry
which make up Khafre‟s and Menkaure‟s temples. The vertical face appears to
have been cut into for the lower core block, and the ground on which the core
blocks rest appears to have been cut lower than the floor of the corridor.
On the next page we are looking into the northeast corner of the temple, from
inside the temple. Here we can see the two distinct building phases at the
temples north wall. The white arrows denote the top of the bedrock on which
the core stones rest, before the temple floor was cut down. The northern drain
channel is visible along with some granite cladding in the northeast corner of
the vestibule (these are marked on Ricke‟s plan 1, on page 3). The phase 2
corner stones are particularly large; Ricke reports that they are up to 8.5m long;
but after these the wall thins noticeably.
54
52
53
The square pillars
On the square pillars which surround the court, we would have 16 pillars
inserted for phase 1, and then when the temples north and south walls were
pushed out on phase 2, this allowed fitment of a further 12 pillars for a total of
28. Disregarding the pairs of pillars, which face the east and west niches, we
have 24 pillars which surround the court; or 6 on each side, and it has been
suggested that this might reflect the hours in the day. Ricke would state; “After
the temple of the 1st construction phase had been clad inside with granite, it
was rebuilt. A hall of six square pillars has been added to the north and south
sides in harmony with the pillar halls on the east and west sides.”55
Whether the temple had been clad as described above, is open to
interpretation; though Ricke was of the view: “If the square pillars had been
erected first, this would have obstructed the work space for the execution of the
granite cladding of the walls and large courtyard pillars.”
The erection method for the pillars is similar but not the same as that displayed
in Khafre‟s pyramid temple, shown left in Hӧlscher‟s fig 61. Ricke‟s fig 11
above shows the method employed at the sphinx temple (the valley temple
pillars are unknown, as these are yet to be explored). The idea is roughly both
the same; the pillars are brought in and tipped around a higher lip left in the
rock to vertical, and then patch stones inserted to secure the pillar; though one
favours the stronger bond in the pyramid temple. In the pyramid temple
Hӧlscher describes the process well; here a broken stump of a granite pillar
showed that the pillar was installed unfinished (a sensible precaution against
damage) and then was dressed down after it was safely erected; hence the
dashed lines in his fig 61 above. The broken stump showed that the dressed part
was about 98cm square, and the undressed part which was in the rock socket
was given as about 1.29 m square, an increase of some 31cm. 56 Hӧlscher would
55
Ibid, page 16
56
Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Chephren, 1912, page 52
54
siggest that the pillar was intended as 1 cubit 6 palms, though it could have been
intended as 2 cubits square, as Petrie‟s detail measures of each pillar in the
valley temple show a range of 39 to 42.4 inches (99 to 107 cm), so a wide
building tolerance can be found at the valley temple, but it is generally accepted
that these pillars are 2 cubits square.
This installation process is important for the sphinx temple; unfortunately
Ricke does not provide much detail on the sockets, and only states that the
pillars in the sphinx temple were 2 cubits square; he states; “The square pillars
that had been erected in the Temple of Harmachis, none of which have survived,
were 2 cubits wide (1.05m) and were undoubtedly monolithic.”57 Unfortunately
Ricke provides no dimensions of the sockets, though from his plan 1, they all
appear less than 1m square. Though he compares these sockets to those found in
Khafre‟s pyramid temple, he appears to not notice the wider undressed base of
the pillars and that the sockets are larger than the finely dressed dimensions of
the pillar. Thanks to the earlier work of M&R we have a clue to the size of these
pillar sockets; here in discussing the pillars to the north and south of the
courtyard, they noticed that the slopes in the sockets showed that they were
brought in from the west. They go on to say; “their ceilings were supported, in
each case, by six square-shaped pillars, the sockets of which measure about 0.9
to 1m in each direction. It may therefore be supposed that the uprights, when
finished, had sides measuring one cubit 4-5 palms (0.82 – 0.90m).”58
Here in the above statement, M&R appear to have allowed for dressing of
the pillars after insertion; but the fact that the sockets as given by M&R are less
than 2 cubits square, puts a question mark on Ricke‟s assertion that the pillars
are 2 cubits square, and in consequence would affect his cubit spacing scheme,
which I have previously questioned in part 1.
The sockets vary in depth, and this is likely due to the varying lengths of
undressed pillars which were delivered on site; for example on Ricke‟s plan 1
he gives 7 spot heights for the socket floors by the east niche. The temple floor
here is given as 87, whilst the sockets range from a low of 12 to 38 or some 49
to 75cm below the floor.
As part of his reconstruction, Ricke would state that when one subtracted
the depth of the socket and the thickness of the pavement, the remaining pillar
would be 8 cubits (4.20m) high, which he states, corresponds exactly to the
height of the pillars, which make up the double colonnade in Khafre‟s valley
temple.59 However, this too has to be questioned, for Hӧlscher‟s scale drawings
suggest that these pillars are 4m high, and this appears confirmed by Petrie‟s
dimensions for the higher pillars of the single colonnade, which he gives as
4.42m; and as Hӧlscher states that the double colonnade pillars are 40cm less
than the single colonnade pillars; this brings these pillars in close agreement to
57
58
59
55
his scale drawings of 4m and not the 4.2m quoted by Ricke (see part III). This
might be described as nitpicking, but it is important that any theory must adhere
to the observable data. All I can say is that it seems unlikely that 2 cubit square
pillars were inserted into the sphinx temple, and their height is unknown; of
course one could insert fully dressed pillars that required no further processing
once in the socket, but how likely is that scenario? As stated previously in part
III, it would be beneficial to lift some of the alabaster flooring from around
some of the pillars in the valley temple to observe their method of installation;
though it‟s very unlikely that Egyptology would do such a thing.
In Ricke‟s fig 12, he shows the difficulty

in introducing a pillar into the phase 2
northwest corner. Like M&R, he noticed
the cuttings of the sockets, which shows
that the pillars were introduced from the
west. Strangely there is no socket in this
location; Ricke reports that there is only a
narrow channel in this location to help tilt
the pillar onto the rock floor.60 Here he
sees the cladding being removed from the
corner to provide space for the pillar.
In Ricke‟s fig 9, we can see the

direction of pillar insertion for
the east niche. Here the pillars
nearest the niche are introduced
from the west, whilst the others
are introduced from the north,
with the last pillar being
particularly awkward on
account of the corner: here it
appears to have been initially
erected from the north and then
moved sideways into alignment with the other pillars. The phase 2 extension
must have been a nightmare for the builders, if the temple was already clad;
especially if roofing elements had been installed as well, before the decision
was taken. Ultimately, the state of play at the time the decision was taken to
expand the temple is unknown. The extension itself would appear to be a large
amount of work, for little reason. Pushing the north and south walls out does not
60
Ibid, page 22-23
56
increase the passage width between the courtyard and the pillars, as the pillars
effectively sit on the route of the old walls. All that is achieved is another
superfluous passage on the outside of the pillars; Ricke thought that there must
have been some thematic reason for the design change.61
In the above image we are looking into the northwest corner of the temple, in
which the pillar which we see on Rickes fig 12, was erected, with no socket.
The highlighted area is the rock cut down from the upper terrace, with core
masonry placed on top: the wooden structure above is connected to a later
temple which was built over the northwest corner of the temple. It‟s difficult to
obtain any clear images of these pillar sockets, as they are often obscured by
large masonry left on the temple floor especially at the south end. Of the six
pillar sockets along the north wall we only are given one spot height from
Ricke‟s plan 1. Likewise some pillar socket depths are missing by the south
wall, and whilst Ricke reports that in the above corner the westernmost pillar
had no socket, he does not report on what was found on the westernmost pillar
against the south wall; though this may be because loose masonry prevented
observation. The data on these pillar sockets is unfortunately quite limited.
61
Ibid, page 16
57
In the above image62 we are looking south towards the valley temple in the
background; the courtyard pillars and square pillar sockets on the west side of
the temple court are in view. In the foreground I have highlighted the turning
groove on the rock floor, which Ricke says was used to pivot the westernmost
granite pillar to vertical. No socket exists in this location; a similar problem
would exist in the opposite southwest corner; unfortunately I could find no clear
images or information on this location (though in the sphinx project drawing d-
gen-048 a socket is intimated in this location, but no depth given). It is a strange
feature, and one wonders why they did not adopt the solution for the pillar
erected in Ricke‟s fig 9 (see page 56).
The courtyard pillars
Ricke would report that the dimension of these pillars and the passages between
them are identical down to the last detail, to those of Khafre‟s pyramid temple.63
However, given the ruinous remains of the pillars as evidenced by the images,
and detailed drawings such as d-gen-048 mentioned above, it is difficult to see
how Ricke arrives at such certainty. As I showed in part 1 (pages 38-41),
Ricke‟s cubit schemes for both courts do not agree with each other. Given the
62
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx project, 101-color-photo-022525
63
Ibid, page 12
58
similarity to Khafre‟s court, he may have assumed that the sphinx temple pillars
were the same, just as he has assumed that the square pillars are two cubits
square. Against these pillars Ricke would see 10 statues erected, and indeed his
reconstruction of the court is a smaller version of that which he gives for the
Pyramid temple.
From Ricke‟s publication we have his reconstruction of the sphinx temple; the
upper section is north-south, with the northern half showing phase 1, and phase
2 extension denoted by a dashed line. The lower section is east-west, with
sphinx paws visible on upper terrace. Unlike the valley temple, where a
complete statue was found along with numerous fragments of others, there is no
hard evidence that statues once occupied the sphinx temple; but if they did, they
have been carefully removed and likely usurped by some other ruler. How they
were introduced into the temple is another problem; it‟s hard to see them
coming through the entrances as these appear too narrow, compared to the sizes
of some of the statue sockets: maybe a construction gap was left in one of the
walls.
Surprisingly Ricke gives us very little information on these courtyard
pillars and the sockets in front of them, other than they held statues. Our best
report on them comes from M&R, in which they state;
“The piers consisted of a core and a casing which, from the few blocks left in
situ, seems to have been of granite. The core was partly built in masonry and
partly, where it was possible, obtained by cutting into the living rock.
Particularly notable is a buttress projecting about a cubit on the courtyard side
and visible in the centre of the cores of all the piers. In front of each of these, on
59
the courtyard side, a hole was dug in the rock that was evidently intended to
receive a structural or decorative feature. The holes are not all of the same size.
The four to the east are almost identical (1.50 - 1.85 x 3.10 -3.30 m.) and two of
them are unusual in being still filled with fine limestone masonry up to within a
few centimetres of their upper rim and against the buttress of the core of the
corresponding pillars. Another hole in this row is also very shallow, but its
bottom seems to be formed of living rock.
The two holes to north and south of the courtyard are wider than the
others (2-2.35 x 3.30m. circa). The one to the north had the edges very much
worn away and chipped, and a slightly sloping layer of limestone slabs on its
bottom is perhaps the remains of a filling similar to those previously described.
The hole to the south has a surface sloping towards the pier and preceded by a
regular but deeper cut.
Of the four western holes, the two outer ones have dimensions similar to
those on the east side (1.50 - 1.65 x 3 metres). Their rock bottom has steps and
surfaces with varying slopes. The two inner holes are larger ( 1.85 x 4.30 - 4.45
m.) and their rock bottom is curiously cut, reaching in both the maximum depth
of one metre. It was obviously not possible to measure the vertical dimension of
the holes that were full of masonry, but the others are also about one metre
deep, with a single possible exception, as has already been said. All the holes,
but especially the two most northerly ones on the west side, have their upper
edges very much worn away, perhaps as a result of the demolition that took
place.
The difference in vertical section between the holes of the Temple of the
Sphinx and those of the courtyard of the Upper Temple of Chephren is so
notable as to make one suppose that even the purposes for which they were dug
were by no means the same and that the features for which they were prepared
were also different. As said before (see Chephren, « Observations, etc. », N°
32), Grinsell thinks that the courtyard of the Temple of the Sphinx « was lined
with 10 small sphinxes, the sockets of which are still to be seen ». Selim Hassan
(The Sphinx etc. cit., p. 30), on the other hand, believes that colossal statues of
the King were erected in the sockets.
Seeing that the holes in the courtyard of the Sphinx Temple:
- reached up to the core of the piers and were as wide as the buttress protruding
from the core;
- had different dimensions, but were symmetrical as regards the east-west axis
of the temple;
- that some at least, and probably all, were filled with masonry of fine limestone
blocks up to a few centimetres from the upper level of the smoothed rock;
It may be thought that the piers, when faced, had a recess corresponding
to the buttress of the core in which ornamental, rather than structural features
(such as statues or triads) of the courtyard found a place, at least in part.
60
It should be noted that the recess is suggested also by the fact that in the
buttresses of the cores there are no cuts far the laying of the facing blocks
which, however, exist very clearly on all the other faces of the piers, even at
both sides of the buttresses themselves.”64
These „T‟ shaped pillars and especially the sockets in front of them are most
unusual and it is surprising that Ricke has not commented on these strange
features, and how different they are to Khafre‟s pyramid temple. Ricke would
state; “The pits for setting up the statues are of different depths, so the statues
have been delivered with bases of different thicknesses. The fact that the statues
were actually erected can be seen from the fact that some pits were filled up
with stone slabs, because the bases of the statues that were erected in them were
not as high as had previously been announced or expected.”65
The above scenario seems unlikely as I would expect the builder‟s to await the
arrival of any particular statue, just as we see for the square pillars, before they
cut the rock to the required depth. As M&R state, some of these pits are as
much as 1m deep, and yet some of them have been filled with masonry to a few
centimetres from the top, (though it would be beneficial to open these pits to see
their construction) where we assume a seated statue was placed; moreover, we
have to also take into account the missing alabaster pavement which would be
laid around the bases of these statues once fitted and this is thought to be about
1 cubit thick or half a metre.
Seated statues have a low centre of gravity, so should we expect a deep
pit? If we compared the shallow sockets found in the valley temple for its
statues; why the difference in the sphinx temple? The strange cuttings in the
floor and slope of the pits is also quite strange, and might be construed as
sloping cuts such as we see for the square pillars to help in erecting the
„T‟shaped pillars; and yet, they appear overly deep for such a role, and as M&R
mention: “The core was partly built in masonry and partly, where it was
possible, obtained by cutting into the living rock.” Indeed, the mystery deepens
when we see that often the slope of the pit does not go down in the direction of
the pillar but sometimes away from the pillar!

64
65
61
In the above image we are looking east from the upper terrace, and in pillar „A‟
the slope of the pit is away from the pillar, whilst in pillar „B‟ the slope is
towards the pillar. One can see dressing cuts on the back of the pillars for the
granite cladding. The pillars themselves look heavily eroded and damaged,
compared to other elements of the temple. Some modern repairs are visible, and
it appears unknown as to what state these pillars were found when the temple
was excavated as nothing was published: had they all been knocked over for
example?
62
The only sectional drawings of the pits I could find are from M&R‟s TAV 14
above. I have highlighted the pits were the slope runs away from the pillar;
though there appears to be an error on their drawing, as the eastern pillars in the
above drawing are at the bottom and I have marked the pillars A & B. In the
section next to „A‟ we appear to have a different direction of slope to that
shown on the previous image; however, the spot heights for this pit on Ricke‟s
plan 1, appear to confirm that the photograph is correct.
In Ricke‟s plate 13b above, we are looking west; with pit „B‟ left, the next two
pits are the highlighted ones on M&R drawing above.
63
In this view we are looking at the four western pillars, two of the furthest are
visible in the previous image. M&R state that some of these pillar cores are
constructed from the rock; but it‟s hard to determine from the images the extent
of it. We know the temple floor has been cut down by 60cm, was some of this
spared to form the base of the pillars? There is so little data on these pits and
pillars, were they monoliths, or consisted of several parts for example? (In
Lehner‟s fig 11&15 it shows some of these pillars to be made of type B and
type A rock)66 But it again highlights what little we know about the sphinx
temple. Though M&R state that the buttresses extend out about a cubit, there
appears to a lot of variability. The furthest pillar above displays a pronounced
buttress compared to the others. The whole scene is very unclear, some of these
pillar cores are very thin, which were subsequently clad with granite; the whole
assembly seems unstable, why not create them from well knitted granite blocks?
Granite shortage does not seem an issue given the amount used by Khafre along
with his successor‟s Menkaure and Shepsekaf. Certainly M&R have a valid
point when they state; “The difference in vertical section between the holes of
the Temple of the Sphinx and those of the courtyard of the Upper Temple of
Chephren is so notable as to make one suppose that even the purposes for which
they were dug were by no means the same and that the features for which they
were prepared were also different.“
66
AERA Giza Plateau mapping project, 2016-2017 Annual Report, M. Lehner, see fig 11, on page 101, and fig
15, on page 104
64
The Drains
As previously mentioned, Ricke thought that the drains predated the current
temple, and that they may have belonged to something else that had disappeared
without a trace; for the northern drain he would state; “What makes one think
that this drainage pipe is older than the temple, is the difficult to understand
location of its beginning in the courtyard and its inclined direction, which gave
it a slope on the old, gently sloping lower terrace to the east. It is not possible to
tell whether this drainage pipe was still used after the temple was built or was
completely covered by the pavement.”67
The north drainage channel as we will see is

a superior quality drainage channel
compared to the southern channel. The
northern channel is a fine all granite affair.
According to Ricke it is made of two trough
shaped, butting granite blocks (no
dimensions are given, so the location of the
butt joint is unknown). By scale rule the
length of the granite drain is just over 9m
long; and as Ricke‟s plan shows, it starts
just behind the north courtyard pillars and
extends under the phase 2 north wall and
terminates at a shaft, partially cut into the
newly cut northern enclosure wall. The
depth of the shaft is not given. The granite
trough was covered with granite slabs to
protect it. The location of the butt joint for
the granite troughs is not given, but it might
be possible that in phase 1, a similar set up existed for the drain to enter a shaft
at the base of the old northern enclosure wall, and then when the extension was
added, a new piece of granite trough was added to extend the drain to a new
shaft under the newly cut northern enclosure wall. As we can see from Ricke‟s
plan, the square pillars are placed on the route of the old phase 1 wall, with the
result that one of the pillars is actually placed on top of the drain. Also of note is
that the trough according to the spot heights is not level, with the southern end
given as +72, and the north end as +53.
67
Der Harmachistempel des Chefren in Giseh, Heft 10, H.Ricke 1970, page 15-16
65
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-01019 &
0102168
The above images show the northern granite

drain; the left image looking north from inside
the courtyard, and the right image looking down
from the phase 2 north wall: the drawing left is
M&R‟s section from their TAV 14. A neat
channel has been cut in the natural rock for the
granite drain. The drain appears sunk deeper
into the rock on the right image, this is because
the floor of the north corridor is higher this side
of the wall. It is a pity that this shaft has not been cleared out and examined; the
angled route of the drain may have been directed towards a natural fissure to
help any water drain. Ricke would suggest that the rock had a porous layer and
commented on how an American woman drilled a vertical hole near one of the
pillar shafts, and found ground water about 1m deep.69
68
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, black and white Photo 01019 & 01021.
69
Ibid, page 16
66
It would seem strange to use such a valuable and difficult material as
granite for a drain, which would not be seen, once a pavement had been fitted;
but we do see this practice in Khafre‟s Valley and Pyramid temples.
In the badly ruined Pyramid temple, we see a similar granite drain above, which
leads from its court: see part 1. This similarity to the drains found in Khafre‟s
other temples leads me to think that the northern drain at least, is contemporary
to the phase 1&2 builds of the temple; however, the southern drain is definitely
suspect.
I have highlighted the location

of the southern drain, and again
information on this drain is
scant, but its location appears
illogical. The question mark
may be the end of the drainage
channel; this would terminate
against the higher rock of the
corridor (spot heights 117-125
and channel 70: I could find no
clear images of this area). The
most visible part of drainage
channel is across the floor of the passage which leads from the southern
vestibule to the courtyard.
67
From inside the passage looking towards the courtyard, we can see a much
cruder construction, and as far as I can deduce from the available images, we do
not see the fine granite construction of the northern drainage channel, just a
narrow limestone channel cut out of the rock. The location of this channel
meant that the lower door pivot was inserted differently to all the other doors in
the temple.71 In the image above, the channel extends under the core masonry
(top right) an unknown distance, and to the left it continues under the core
masonry to a shaft of unknown depth. From the shaft, the channel continues
further southwards, again an unknown distance, though possibly to the question
mark on the previous image. The northern part of the channel from the shaft had
been taken out of service and according to Ricke, was filled with rubble stones;
whilst the southern section from the shaft was left open, and he thought that this
was to assist water drainage from the valley temple district. Unfortunately, no
cross section drawings are given of the above channel, but its construction and
location seem unusual, and so it cannot be discounted that this channel at least
predates phase 1 & 2.
Pending detailed scrutiny of this channel and its shaft, it‟s very difficult
to come to any conclusion as to its original function.
70
71
Ibid, page 15
68
From inside the court looking into the southeast corner we can see the location
of the shaft, under a phase 1 core block.
69
The Pavement
It is thought that the pavement of the temple was of alabaster, M&R state; “The
courtyard was certainly paved and from the abundant traces remaining we
think that the paving consisted of alabaster slabs.”72
Ricke would state “The paving, made of partly very large alabaster
slabs – a large slab is discarded near the southwest corner of the courtyard –
was laid after completion of all the rising masonry, apparently in all rooms,
because we found remnants of it in widely spaced places.”73 He would suggest
that the paving was on average about 50cm thick, though variable depending on
the unevenness of the rock on which it was placed, and any possible grading of
the pavement toward the drain. Ricke also reports some levelling cones of rock
left on the floor; he would suggest that ropes would be stretched between these
cones with the rock cut down, measuring from the rope: these cones he suggests
could be left and accommodated by the thick pavement.74
In contrast Lehner and Hawass state; “We see little evidence that the
alabaster pavement had been finished. Ricke discusses a series of small conical
protrusions of bedrock found here and there in the temple floor. He suggests
they were used in levelling the floor, and that the alabaster pavement, 50-60 cm
(20-24in.) thick, would have covered them. We believe these odd protrusions
would have been eradicated had the pavement been completed across the
temple floor. Furthermore, we do not find cuttings for fitting individual slabs,
such as exist in the pyramid courts of Khufu and Khafre.”75
On Ricke‟s plan 1 on the next page I have highlighted, what I believe are the
levelling cones mentioned by Ricke in Green, of which six are shown with spot
heights. The highest is in the northwest corner at +124, whilst the nearest floor
level is given as +87, or a difference of 37cm. The cone heights all vary with the
lowest given as +103, and likely they have all been damaged as people looted
stone etc. The cones do not appear numerous, or logically set out, with a pair
next to each other in the southwest corner. The extent of the alabaster found is
not clear, but given the soft nature of the stone, one would imagine any
pavement if fitted, would be the last part of the internal construction, so as to
prevent any damage occurring to it. Though alabaster from the above quotes
was noted, we have no detail on what was found where, its size etc, and it
cannot be discounted that alabaster traces which are described, may have come
from wall cladding, as we have good examples in the valley temple where the
walls in some locations were clad in alabaster; likewise in Khafre‟s pyramid
temple.
L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2, page 138-140

72
73
74
Ibid, page 6
75
Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, Lehner & Hawass, page 225
70
Cone locations highlighted in green
The rear rooms
At the rear of the temple we have symmetrical parallel rooms, whose lower
parts are cut into the upper terrace. They consist of one short and one long
room, neither of which have doors, the only door being from the courtyard.
M&R report that opposite the short room in the temples southwest corner, the
surviving lower course of cladding was of alabaster; and that in the following
room it resorted back to granite. They suggested therefore that the short rooms
were once clad in alabaster, with the long rooms in Granite.76 Could the large
slab described by Ricke in the southwest corner, be part of further cladding? In
Ricke‟s plan above he draws the cladding mentioned by M&R, here he states;
“At the entrance to the room group in the south-west corner of the Hermachis
Temple, two blocks of white crystalline sandstone have been placed between the
cladding blocks that have been preserved there, namely in the lowest cladding
layer, which was largely covered by the alabaster paving.”77 Unfortunately I

76
77
71
have no images of this area. Ultimately, given the ruinous state of the temple we
may never know how far the interior came to completion. The fact that we have
no evidence of external cladding having been begun, one suspects that the
interior had not been completed, as it‟s hard to believe that the builders would
wait until the interior had been finished before commencing exterior works. I
would expect that after the granite interior elements had been fitted and dressed,
the final fitment would be the alabaster floor; whilst those experienced in
granite would commence exterior cladding operations.
The above image from Ricke‟s publication, plate 15b, shows the southwest
corner of the court; the entrance to the rear rooms can just be made out between
the cut down upper terrace, which Ricke has denoted by the dashed lines and
the core blocks of the south wall (this dashed line is drawn on Ricke‟s plan on
the previous page: see also plate 13b on page 63 for a front view of this terrace).
72
In the above image we are looking into the southwest corner from the top of the
southern wall; we can make out the outline of the short room, and this is all
natural rock cut down from the upper terrace, and beyond, we see part of the
long room with core masonry sitting on top, which is also the rear wall of the
temple.
78
73
In the above image we are looking down from on top of the valley temple, and
we can just make out the north end of the long room, along with the core blocks
on top of the cut down terrace. The core block which runs along the east wall of
the long room is „L‟ shaped, and it is likely that when it was fitted, it was larger,
and I have denoted this with the yellow lines. Once fitted, the masons would
have cut down to create the outline of the long room. This procedure was often
replicated even in hard material such as granite, and we often see strange granite
stones which appear to turn a corner.
This view is looking down into

the short and long rooms of the
southwest corner. We can see
how the natural rock has been cut
down, leaving a thin partition
wall between the two rooms;
either side of which would be
clad in fine stone.

79
74
In the previous image they had still been excavating the floor of the long room
and the image above shows the channel extend to the north wall. Once clad, the
width of these halls by scale rule is around 1.5m. Their height and function is
unknown; Ricke would suggest storage for cult inventory.
75
The Niches
The function of the two niches, one on the west wall and the other on the east
wall is likewise unknown, and both fall on the temples east – west axis.
In Ricke‟s fig 13 above, he shows a barque occupying the space between the
square pillars and the niche, and suggests the possibility of a day barque in the
east niche with a night barque in the west niche.80
An earlier presence?
Ultimately, the form and function of the temple is very problematic, and this is
not helped with the scant data on the temple. The original excavations can only
be described as a disaster and vital evidence has been lost, which might have
helped in unravelling the history of the temple. M&R‟s brief excursus on the
temple does not tell us much; whilst the larger work by Ricke is also lacking in
detail; though they both are a good start, but much work remains to be done. As
an amateur layman access to the temple is not possible, but from the available
data I have managed to collect, there are many issues which concern me, some
of which I have noted in this guide. But with all things considered and as a
layman, I have to conclude that the sphinx and its enclosure predate the mighty
kings of the 4th dynasty.
The valley temple and the sphinx temple (both phases), to me at least are
indicative of 4th dynasty architecture; however, I think it cannot be discarded
that an earlier structure may have at one time been present in front of the
sphinx. How old the sphinx and its enclosure may be, is for geologists to argue,
and all I can say, is good luck in finding a consensus there. It is possible that the
sphinx was originally a lion, and that the roadway which ran along the top of its
southern enclosure wall, originally extended further east and connected to a
80
Ibid, page 36
76
channel to the Nile; whilst the other end extended to a high point on the plateau.
A lower terrace may have existed in front of the sphinx on which an earlier
structure once stood. The sphinx itself was likely sculpted from the living rock,
with no masonry required in its construction; with any natural fissures being
filled by small stones and plaster etc.
When Khufu arrived at Giza he would recognise a heavily eroded sphinx
and its enclosure, and either he or Khafre wished to subsume this structure into
their complex. Repairs would be enacted by encasing the sphinx in masonry,
and resculpting its head to that of the king. What original temple, which may
have been in front of the sphinx, was removed, or parts adapted or used in the
new phase 1 temple. The space for the valley temple was made by cutting into
the end of the old roadway, and new quays constructed in front of it.
Who may have built the sphinx and its enclosure is largely down to the
processes responsible for the erosion, of which geologists disagree, and the
climatic conditions in the historical pass. For the Giza area, the Maadi culture is
the best known predynastic group, circa 4000-3500bc (dates vary) or
contemporary with Naqada I-IIb phases in Upper Egypt. Even at this early age,
copper implements were being used, and the ability to make fine stone vessels
out of hard stone such as basalt is displayed. The Maadi culture also displayed
some of the earliest use of stone building in Egypt, and A.Badaway excavated a
subterranean structure made of stone and plastered in mud. Of course this is
crude small work compared to what we see at the Sphinx temple. Trading links
to the Levant appear to have been established, judging by the pottery found at
the Maadi site. Could such people be responsible for creating the sphinx and its
enclosure?
The presence of earlier dynastic or predynastic cultures on the Giza
plateau is suggested by various pieces of evidence. Overlooking the southern
end of Giza we have earlier dynastic mastaba‟s such as Covington‟s (which
varies between dynasty 2 or 3), and it is likely that earlier structures once
existed on the Giza plateau before the arrival of the 4 th dynasty kings, who
wouldn‟t waste time on compulsory purchase orders, before clearing the site for
their massive complexes.
The best evidence for an earlier presence at Giza comes from the
excavations of Karl Kromer, who excavated a sizeable dumping site, east of
Menkaure‟s pyramid from 1971-1975. After his first season, Kromer would
state; “After the results of the first excavation, I would therefore like to suggest
the following interpretation of the discovery as the most probable: There was an
extensive settlement on the site of today‟s pyramid district of Giza. ---- The life
of the settlement probably extended from the first dynasty to the third dynasty.
At the beginning of the fourth dynasty, the rock plateau on which the settlement
77
was located was declared a burial precinct and the settlement was
demolished.”81
Kromer‟s finds, ranged from simple mud bricks to lithic implements,
ceramics and mud sealings. Kromer was a Professor of pre and early history at
Innsbruck University, and I assume he was competent enough to date the
artifacts which he excavated. A larger publication at the end of his excavations
was published in 1978, entitled „Settlement finds from the early Old Kingdom
in Giza‟.82 This publication was reviewed by Karl Butzer in 1982; here he
would criticise Kromer for lacking proper recording and analysis of the strata,
though he does not query the artifacts themselves. He would state; “My
impression is that several settlements may well have been incorporated in the
dump, including drift sand removed from the pyramid platform,”83 He would
further state; “These excavations stand as an example of what can be lost by
inadequate procedures. The primary positive value of the report is in the large
selection of well illustrated lithic artifacts, particularly the flints and stone
bowls.”84 Nowhere in his review does he question the dating of these artifacts;
indeed, he states; “The 1580 inventoried "finds" indicate settlement during the
first four dynasties and suggest specialized workmen's quarters related to the
building activities of Chephren.”85
In more recent times a sondage across the Kromer dump was undertaken by
AERA and reported by Ali Witsell; the report states, “Secondly, for decades
scholars have thought that the material excavated by Kromer dated to quite a
long stretch of time, perhaps even hundreds of years. But based on our work at
HeG, we suspect this not to be the case. We hope to prove conclusively that the
Kromer material actually dates to a much smaller window of time, perhaps just
the few decades covering the reigns of Khufu and Khafre.”86 (The HeG is a
large workers settlement to the southeast of the wall of the crow)
As a layman it came across as quite a strange thing to say; after all,
Kromer had unearthed and catalogued a huge amount of material, should this
not be the first port of call to assess if he has correctly identified and dated his
finds? I understand that ceramics, lithics etc often develop into specialisms, but
so far I have found no clear evidence that Kromer was incorrect in his findings.
One scholar who specialises in clay sealings, Maira Torcia Rigillo,
examined some 239 sealings from the Kromer dump excavations. In her
summary she found 7 seals with the name of Khufu, and a further 4 assigned to
his period. A greater number, 55 were assigned to Khafre; another 16 pieces to
81
Osterreichische Ausgrabungen in Giseh. Vorbericht Uber Die Fruhjahrskampagne 1971, Wein 1972,
K.Kromer, page 35
82
Seidlungsfunde aus dem fruhen Alten Reich in Giseh: osterreichische Ausgrabungen 1971-1975, Vienna 1978
83
Journal of Near eastern Studies, Vol41. April 1982. Number 2, page 141
84
Ibid, page 141
85
Ibid, page 140
86
AERAGRAM, Vol.19, No I, Spring 2018, pages 2-3
78
an Unknown king: 53 incised signs, and another large group of 104 clay
sealings with figurative seal impressions. Apart from the large group of
figurative seals, her findings were published in 2003.87 Her conclusion on the
seals seems quite clear, she states;
“In This an atypical situation, without any stratigraphy or structures, we could

deduce some conclusive notes from our clay sealings alone; the seal
impressions, for the first time during our research, bring highly indicative
inscriptions with official titles.
All the materials testify the long, even if not continuous, life of the
settlement: it goes back to the Protodynastic period, through the Thinite
dynasties and the Djoser age, to the 4th dynasty. The last evidence belongs to the
Chefren kingdom, during which the site was in full working order.------ Since
the site was present in Protodynastic period, we deduce that it was not built to
follow the first Great Pyramid construction. We know this event was required to
settle the area in order to satisfy the growing necessities during this phase,
above all those of the king and his court. Probably this pre-existent site was
used on purpose.”88
In the last paragraph of her conclusion, she states; “The frame we try to
reconstruct on the ground of the data, deduced from the Giza clay sealings,
should support the Kromer hypothesis about the intense activity of the site
during this period. In our opinion, the most part of the offices are relating to the
living world not to the dead one. We are in the presence of a real town where
stratification and centralised control were part of the social organisation and
had a long life: a kind of town never found in the Egypt of the Ancient Kingdom.
We regret that we can only suppose the results which would have come from
finding the original site.”89
The large group of figurative seal impressions was dealt with in a later paper by
Rigillo90 In her abstract she states; “The present work is concerned with 104
cretulae, which are part of a group of 239 pieces, coming from a site at Giza
pyramids area. This site, near the Mycerinus pyramid, was excavated by the
Archaeological Austrian Mission directed by Prof. K. Kromer in years „70s; it
was found completely dismantled so there is no stratigraphy but a lot of
materials, included the above mentioned 239 cretulae, testifies to a long
occupation of the site, from the Naqada period to the Chefren kingdom. The
cretulae with the seal impressions of Cheops and Chefren, with official titles,
Giza, Cretule Dall’area Delle Piramidi, 2003, Maira torcia Rigillo.

87
88
Ibid, page 142
89
Ibid, page 143
90
The Cretulae from Giza with figurative seal impressions: 2000
79
the group with incised signs on the external surface and those with broken
cartouche were already published (Torcia Rigillo M., 2003).
This last group composed by 104 cretulae bears impressions of cylinder
seals with figurative imagery: animalistic patterns, above all rows of birds,
caprids and lizards, geometrical and vegetal elements. There are no
inscriptions, apart some isolated “hieroglyphs”.
On the back they show the impressions of the usual sealed objects:
containers such as vases and sacks, knobs of doors, wooden boxes and a few
pieces of vegetable fibres boxes.
The group is not homogeneous, neither for style or for subject; they
belong to different periods. Some of these impressions probably could be
assigned to the end of the Naqada period, some others are to be dated to the
Early Dynastic because of some affinities with archaic seals from Egyptian area
and Near East. Furthermore, this group of sealings could be a further witness
of the administrative use of the seal at that time in Giza area and of a
transitional phase in the forming process of the writing structure.”
In her work possible trading relations are mentioned; “Moreover, the site
produces Naqada ware, potmarks and cretulae, imagery of which reminds to
the Upper Egypt and Near East: high likely, Giza could be a hub in the trade
network between these areas; at the same time, it could be a centre of the
Naqada culture expansion in the Delta, at the end of Naqada II.”91
More information on the AERA excavations at the Kromer dump came shortly
after Ali Witsell‟s report, in the form of an edited field dispatch by Lehner.92
The report entitled „Kromer in Context, Biography of an Ancient Dump 2‟ starts
with; “Here, in an edited version of one of his field dispatches, Mark Lehner
lays out his initial thoughts on the context of the Kromer Dump, a 4 th Dynasty
demolition and trash deposit high on the southern Giza Plateau, where AERA
excavated in Spring 2018.”93
Once again the impression is given that Kromer‟s dump is solely a 4 th
dynasty dump, and we see no mention of the earlier finds and conclusion‟s
made by Kromer and Rigillo. Do the AERA discount the findings of Kromer
and Rigillo, and if they do, surely are they not beholden to provide evidence as
to where these scholars have gone wrong? Lehner‟s field dispatch shows a
complex site, with tiplines coming from both east and west. Their sondage was
limited to a small area of the Kromer dump, and neither could they dig down to
the earliest layers. The report acknowledges that in future seasons, they plan to
91
Further information on these figurative seals, can be found on Maira Torcia Rigillo, academia.edu page; such
as ‘Giza and Hierakonpolis: cretulae with figurative seal impressions and isolated signs of writing. Connections
with the Mesoptamian area.’
92
AERAGRAM, Vol.19, No 2, fall 2018
93
Ibid, page 2
80
dig deeper. But as a layman this all comes across as very confusing; should not
the „1580 inventoried finds‟, mentioned by Butzer be re-examined and clarified?
The sprawling HeG settlement also seems to have turned up a few anomalies;
for example a few Buto-Maadi sherds were recovered from the MSE (Main
street east) excavations. An interesting appendix on the Buto-Maadi sherds is to
be found in „Settlement and Cemetery at Giza: Papers from the 2010 AERA-
ARCE Field School‟.94 In the appendix it states; “Our recovery of Buto-Maadi
sherds was not the first instance of their appearance in the Giza region. We
have evidence, mainly in the form of pottery, of the culture occurring at Giza
and in the neighboring area.” The appendix goes on to give numerous
examples of Buto-Maadi finds, and states; “The Buto-Maadi sherds from Giza
were found at elevations which would be suitable for a settlement.”
The appendix offers three possible explanations for the presence of these
sherds, it states; “The first is that debris from the removal of an earlier site in
the vicinity of the HeG site was dumped in the area of the MSE and the adjacent
areas. The second is that the 4th dynasty settlement overlies earlier, prehistoric
occupation, and perhaps this earlier site had been demolished to make space
for the 4th Dynasty settlement. A third possible explanation is that the debris of
the demolished prehistoric site was reused as building materials of the 4 th
dynasty settlement. This explanation is supported by the fact that the Buto-
Maadi sherds were found within mudbrick collapse deposits of Area MSE.”
Clearly the evidence for an earlier presence on the Giza plateau is somewhat
confusing, and yet, should we really be surprised to find earlier occupation on
the Giza Plateau. As a layman, I would be surprised not to find any evidence of
earlier occupation. Prior to the devastation inflicted on the landscape by the 4 th
Dynasty kings, I would imagine that the plateau would be a prime piece of real
estate for many in the earlier dynasties and predynastic. Could the
sphinx/lioness have been created in an earlier period? What temple, if any,
which may have stood in front of it, may have been a wooden structure, or even
an open structure of stone pillars. If a pre pottery Neolithic culture can create
structures such as Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, thousands of years earlier; is it
beyond possibility that a Buto-Maadi culture could cut out the sphinx and its
enclosure?
As I have mentioned in previous parts, there is much disagreement
between geologists as to the processes responsible for what we see on the
sphinx and its enclosure, and I have already endorsed many of the conclusions
by Colin Reader. Many difficulties remain, such as the climatic conditions in
these early periods; even in the ancient world, climate change was a natural
challenge, and it‟s difficult to quantify the extent of heavy rain and runoff which
94
Settlement and Cemetery at Giza: Papers from the 2010 AERA-ARCE Field School; Appendix, page 125
81
would affect the sphinx site. An article I came across on a neighbouring country
suggested significantly more rainfall, but it does not follow that such conditions
were reflected at Giza, which may have been wetter or dryer. Indeed, having
read a few climatic articles on ancient Egypt, it is a bit like reading the differing
views on the erosion of the sphinx site: i.e. much variability. In short, it‟s
difficult to nail down the climatic conditions which say the Maadi culture had to
contend with. The power of a forceful rainfall can never be underestimated;
when I worked in the Oman, I saw the force at work in totally removing a
modern concrete bridge, during a flash flood. Could such powerful incidents be
discarded in the earlier period before the arrival of the 4 th dynasty kings?
Certainly, a similar force appears to have smashed its way into Menkaure‟s
valley temple. So in a way, the age of the sphinx is intrinsically linked to largely
unknown climate conditions at any particular period.
Many researchers give fantastic ages for the sphinx as far back as
10,000BC or more, but I feel we have to adhere to what cultural evidence has
been found, with the earliest culture connected to Giza being the Maadi culture.
It may be possible that this culture created the sphinx and its enclosure, which
was later subsumed into the 4th dynasty complexes.
Concluding Remarks
The sphinx, its enclosure and adjacent temples have certainly generated
polarized positions, and this will likely continue long into the future. Indeed,
this polarization can also be found on the pyramids themselves, where there is
much disagreement between some researchers and Egyptology. In many
respects this polarization can be laid at Egyptology‟s door; this is because for
too many sites nothing gets published, or if it does, it amounts to a brief
summary. This dearth of data creates a large void, which is too easily filled by
an overactive imagination, in an attempt to make sense of what we see; and I
have little doubt that this guide will also be described as an overactive
imagination.
82

Khafres Temples Giza Part IV The Sphinx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Khafres Temples Giza Part IV The Sphinx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Khafre‟s Temples, Giza: Part IV

The Sphinx Temple : A Layman‟s Guide

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

In part III of this guide (pages 56-58), M&R

Image TUR_Giza548, courtesy of The Giza Project-Harvard University

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-023938

Image courtesy of Meretseger Books

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-color-photo-00418915

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-0241016

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-color-photo-00428318

The earlier steps are shown on part

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo 0238123

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-0242124

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-0239332

Another issue of concern to me is the disparity between the erosion visible on

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Image courtesy of Isida Project

As indicated in reader‟s response above, he mentioned other masonry found in

In the view left we are

Image courtesy of Greg Slater

From Ricke‟s publication we have his

From Ricke‟s plan 1, we can see the

This other depression between the two

Egypt/Egyptology, 3,2, (2006), pages 20-21

In Ricke‟s fig 12, he shows the difficulty

In Ricke‟s fig 9, we can see the

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

The courtyard pillars

L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2, page 138

The north drainage channel as we will see is

The above images show the northern granite

Image courtesy of Isida Project

I have highlighted the location

L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2, page 138-140

The rear rooms

L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V, 1966. Excursus 2, page 136

This view is looking down into

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx Project. 101-black-and-white-photo-01457

“In This an atypical situation, without any stratigraphy or structures, we could

Giza, Cretule Dall’area Delle Piramidi, 2003, Maira torcia Rigillo.

You might also like