46
u/PonderousPenchant 8h ago
Honestly, it probably just fell off on its own. A lot of statues end up with broken noses for the same reason yours breaks when you get punched in the face; it's a fragile thing that extends past the rest of your face.
Hit a schnoz with a millennium or two of wind and sand and it's not terribly surprising it'll pop off.
35
u/PoorCynic 8h ago
That is another theory, although it is a theory that does fly in the face of archaeological evidence. Examinations of the statue's face have shown damage from metal tools.
14
u/PonderousPenchant 8h ago edited 8h ago
Do you have the source for that on-hand? Google sent me to Wikipedia, but the source of the specific claim there goes to a single book on a page that I can't bring up.
EDIT
I found several places say that there are tool marks, but I'm having difficulty getting an actual citation. Just a blank "it is this way" and often worded in a way that almost makes it seem like it's coming from the same source. I'm just wondering what that source is.
20
u/PoorCynic 8h ago
Unfortunately, I don't have a direct source. I was relying on the multiple secondary sources regarding the work of Mark Lehner, who made the claim. That's a failing on my part, I will admit.
8
u/PonderousPenchant 8h ago
Yeah, I'm having the same issue. I just edited my previous comment about it.
I'm not saying that it isn't true, the tool marks, but I'm just fundamentally skeptical of egyptological claims if I can't find the original source. Pop-sci is notorious for exaggerating claims and egypt specifically attracts some... colorful characters. I'm wondering if Lehner or whoever else it could've been said "these are clearly tool marks as demonstrated by X, Y, and Z," or if they said "possible tool marks are present in these places."
Let me know if you do end you finding anything though, even if it's a while out. There's nothing like a well-sourced citation to make a morning better.
2
u/kai58 5h ago
Wouldn’t you expect more even erosion from wind and sand? Smaller statues can fall on their nose and lose it that way but that’s not really an option for the sphinks
•
u/PonderousPenchant 40m ago
It's a complex thing. Erosion in this case would be a kind of punctuated equilibrium, a whole lot of nothing and then a lot of change all at once. Think of like an old abandoned house. It'll deteriorate mostly uniformly for decades or centuries, but then, for whatever reason, a portion of the roof will cave in all at once. The sphinx's nose specifically concentrated a lot of forces of erosion until it failed catastrophically. Then erosion would be concentrated on other exposed bits rather than the inside of the recessed wound left by the nose.
The sphinx was first built almost 5,000 years ago. It was renovated by the Ancient Egyptians about 3,500 years ago, presumably with nose still intact. The nose would most certainly have been dramatically weakened over the next 3,000 years. The question is whether that would've been enough for it to fall off on it's own or if it still needed a bit of help.
Limestone is a relatively weak rock compared to other material used for statues. Diorite and granite has a good chance of lasting a good long time, and even marble is less physically susceptible to wind and water damage. The sphinx is three times older than Roman marble statues, made of a weaker stone, and hit harder by erosion just from its size.
Erosion is very plausible and the simplest solution, but that's why I was interested in the source the OP had for tool marks. Those would move the expectation closer to manual removal. But until we find exactly who made the original claim and in what context, it's not very compelling to me, even if I think it's perfectly plausible.
2
u/SeraphiraLilith 8h ago
Exactly that. To get to the part why a lot of ancient statues of different materials are missing their noses:
It is a potruding part of the structure, in other words: it does not have the same support and stability as the rest of the solid from against our good old friend gravity. Micro tears appear at the "joint" over time, and after some decades or centuries, combined with wind, weather, water, they grow too big and the whole thing falls off.
That's the same reason why plenty ancient statues miss their arms as well. If the arms are entierly unsupported by the posing, there is more gravity pulling at them, micro tears appear at the joints, and so on and so forth.
16
28
u/Nirast25 9h ago
"Officerings"? Either that's a hell of a typo, or someone was sacrificing officers to the Egyptian gods.
14
7
u/Commissar_Tarkin 8h ago
Well, they don't call it "Abu al-Ghauli", which can be literally translated as "The Father of Fear", for nothing, I guess...
15
u/Many-Ad6433 9h ago
Bro a cannon would’ve left way more damage imo for how much i wanna give the fault to the french i gotta say it’s not that plausible
6
u/rillip 8h ago
Why do people assume it was people that denosed the sphinx? Couldn't it have just worn out and fallen off? It is a kind of sticky outy piece and the desert isn't really known for its gentle non-punishing environment.
10
u/PoorCynic 8h ago
As I noted in another comment, while erosion is certainly a theory with merit there is archaeological evidence of facial damage from metal tools.
9
u/NIDORAX 9h ago
Why dont someone in Egypt today make a new nose for the Sphinx and paste the new one on its face?
11
u/PoorCynic 8h ago
Any addition would almost certainly be seen as not only cheap, but also needless. The noseless Sphinx has become an icon; why change it now? It is not as if the lack of nose is a major structural issue. Speaking of structural issues, there's also the risk of further damaging the Sphinx.
8
3
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 8h ago
Jokes aside I hate when nationalist governments do this, ruining actual relics of the past to "renovate them" into their propagandized national symbols
7
3
u/Someguy098_ 7h ago
It's actually the largest version of Got Your Nose. Someone took it as a joke. At least that's my hypothesis.
5
u/ReformedZiontologist 8h ago
How dare you claim Aladdin isn’t a documentary?? Next you’ll try to tell me Agrabah isn’t a real country.
1
u/Tuxedo_Muffin 7h ago
IF it had a lion head before the god/king/human one, what would have caused someone to resculpt it? Could it simply have not been a very stable stone to carve? Lion head breaks, upstart leader decides to make it about himself?
I am not a subject expert in either Egyptology or Geology, but it seems like a plausible explanation for a layperson. There is no evidence of a previous sculpture up to now. But there is evidence of royal vandalism on other sculptures (they were easier to spot).
I dunno, could just be a crazy idea with no merit. Either way, the things people built in the past are pretty inspiring. Wish more had survived.
1
u/anrwlias 7h ago
Why do we assume that it was a person and not just erosion and the stress of time.
1
1
u/Grzechoooo 6h ago
I heard that the Muslim guy tried blowing up the whole thing, but due to aerodynamics or whatever, only the nose fell off.
1
u/Intelligent_Night653 6h ago
I think it fell off by itself and was buried long ago. Look at Ancient Greek statues their arms fall off because of the weight too.
1
u/CharlesOberonn 6h ago
I think the nose probably just fell off on its own. It was structurally the least stable part of the sphinx since it stuck out horizontally from the face. After 4000 years of weathering by the elements (even in the very stable and dry Giza region) it was weakened and eventually fell off.
1
1
1
114
u/PoorCynic 9h ago
A few folks think the missing nose was an accident caused by two visiting Gauls. Bit of a fringe theory, that one.
Thank you all so much for reading, and I’ll see you next time.