In recent decades there has been renewed interest in the possibility of undiscovered tunnels and chambers beneath the Great Sphinx of Giza.
An internet search for “tunnels and chambers of the Sphinx” will usually reveal images like the one shown here, showing the conjectured location of tunnels and rooms within the head and body of the Great Sphinx. For now, elaborate systems of chambers and passages such as these remain undiscovered.
However, several shafts, fissures, and passages are known to exist in and beneath the Great Sphinx of Giza, documented over the past few hundred years. While these features are relatively limited in scale, they have contributed to ongoing speculation about what lies beneath the monument, and whether larger or more complex chambers may still remain undiscovered.
Speculative reconstruction of underground chambers and tunnels beneath the Great Sphinx of Giza, based on an 1858 photograph by Francis Frith in the Getty Museum.
Reports of structures within and under the Sphinx have a long pedigree.
An account of the Great Sphinx of Giza dating from the 17th century CE reveals some bizarre details of how the Great Sphinx was understood before modern excavation. In his book published in 1674, Georg Christoff Von Neitzschitz reported that:
"After we had sufficiently viewed the pyramids, we began our journey again toward Babylon. Not far from there we came upon a sight of indescribable size and wonder, namely a human head formed with large ears, eyes, hair, and a long neck. In this enormous head, many hundreds of years ago, there is said to have been an oracle or prophetic shrine. When one wished to consult it, one had to descend into the aforementioned pyramid through a very deep, dark hole, through which we ourselves had earlier passed with great caution when going up and down. From there one was then led under the earth into the said head, where the priests gave advice and teachings about those things for which people had asked.....” (Sieben-jährige und gefährliche neu-verbesserte Europae, Asiatica und Africanische welt beschreibung (1674)).
As incredible as this account may seem to many of us now, it is possible in retrospect to reconstruct the process by which various strands of apparent evidence were gradually woven into this fantastic tale. We can trace how fragmented details about the Great Sphinx were drip-fed into the popular imagination of early-modern European readers, far removed from the monument and its historical and geographical context. And how, over time, these little tantalising snippets of information from various sources and reports were connected to form a logical, yet ultimately distorted and exaggerated, understanding of the monument and its original function.
But to fully grasp the origins of this wondrous tale, we need to go back to the very beginning.
There are no direct references to passageways or rooms within or under the Sphinx in the Egyptian hieroglyphic texts that have been discovered and translated so far. The Dream Stele of Thutmose IV, found by Giovanni Battista Caviglia at the base of the Great Sphinx's chest in 1817, makes no references to tunnels or chambers.
However, the stele does show the Sphinx sitting on a hieroglyphic representation of a structure with a doorway. This style of depiction of the Great Sphinx was prevalent during the 18th dynasty of Egypt around 1500BCE.
The Dream Stele of Thutmose IV illustrated by Karl Richard Lepsius.
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and detailed description
Image: General Research Division, The New York Public Library.. Neues Reich. Dynastie XVIII. Pyramiden von Giseh [Jîzah]. (1849 - 1856) Stele vor dem grossen Sphinx.
Detail from the Dream Stele of Thutmose IV illustrated by Karl Richard Lepsius showing the Great Sphinx resting on a structure with a doorway.
➡ View the high-resolution illustration
Image: General Research Division, The New York Public Library.. Neues Reich. Dynastie XVIII. Pyramiden von Giseh [Jîzah]. (1849 - 1856) Stele vor dem grossen Sphinx.
Egyptian hieroglyphs O33 (left), a palace or tomb façade, and O21 (right), representing a temple or shrine
It is tempting to interpret the hieroglyphic depiction of the Sphinx on the Dream Stela literally, suggesting the possibility that the Sphinx sits directly on top of an underground structure.
The structure illustrated on the stela integrates aspects of the hieroglyph O33 representing a palace or tomb facade, and O21 meaning a shrine or temple to form a combined hieroglyph upon which the Sphinx rests.
The connection with a tomb façade resonates with two other interesting historical and archaeological facts.
First, the granite sarcophagus of Menkaure, discovered inside Giza’s third and smallest pyramid, replicates the architectural style of a palace or tomb façade.
Side elevation of the granite sarcophagus discovered in the pyramid of Menkaure at Giza, published in Howard Vyse’s Operations Carried On at the Pyramids of Gizeh (1840)
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and detailed description
Second, Pliny the Elder's account of the Great Sphinx dating to the 1st century CE states:
"[the inhabitants of the region] are of the opinion that a King Harmais is buried inside it...." (Pliny Natural History Book 36, Chapter 17. )
Combined, the evidence suggests the alluring possibility that the Sphinx contained a burial below it in a secret underground chamber.
However, subsequent accounts of the Great Sphinx dating to more than a millennium later make no reference to a tomb within or under the Sphinx as suggested by Pliny. Arabic historians such as Abd Al-Latif writing in the early 13th century, Al Maqrizi writing in the early 15th century, and the earliest European visitors, who started publishing their observations in travelogues at the end of the 15th century, simply do not refer to it.
As strange as it may seem to us now, the earliest European visitors do not seem to have connected the statue of the Great Sphinx, of which the head and neck only were visible above the sand, with Pliny's account of the Great Sphinx. Instead, they often referred to the solitary colossal head they observed at Giza as the Idol of Isis.
Early European depiction of the Great Sphinx as an idol of Isis from Johannes Helfrich’s Kurtzer und warhafftiger Bericht von der Reiss aus Venedig nach Hierusalem (1582)
The Sphinx represented as a feminine head in Les voyages et obseruations du Sieur de La Boullaye-Le-Gouz, gentil-homme angeuin (1653) by François La Boullaye-Le-Gouz
Pierre Belon Du Mans writing in the 1550s, following his visit to Giza in 1547, seems to be the first European visitor to connect the monolithic head emerging from the sands of the Giza plateau with Pliny's account. He identified it as the Sphinx or Androsphinx mentioned in classical literature. Yet still, he did not refer to the burial mentioned by Pliny. André Thevet, visiting a few years later in 1552, seems to be the first to repeat Pliny's speculation of a tomb within the Great Sphinx.
Yet, many 16th-century writers continued to be unaware that the colossal head had a body buried beneath the sand. Thevet reported, "There are no wings, nor any body...that I know of..." (Thevet, Cosmographie Universelle (1554)). This confusion is reflected by the many illustrations of the Great Sphinx that represented it simply as a colossal head.
Early European depiction of the Great Sphinx of Giza portrayed as a Greco-Roman male bust in André Thevet’s Cosmographie de Levant (1556)
In addition to the misconception that the Sphinx was merely a monumental carving of a head much like a Greco-Roman bust, the earliest European visitors also recorded a tradition that the monument was an oracle that uttered prophecies. Joos Van Ghistelle, who visited the monument c. 1482-8, reported, "In the vicinity people recount that this head had the habit of speaking..."**
These details became generally accepted as facts about the Great Sphinx and were blended, collated and dramatically expanded when a new element was added to the narrative after 1565.
In that year, two European visitors would make some new but similar observations. Johann Helfricch, whose account of his travels was published 14 years later in 1579, noted:
"This statue is hollow within, so that one may go beneath it from the earth, from afar, through a narrow hidden passage, and enter into it. Through this passage the pagan priests entered into the said head. From inside the head they spoke to the people, and thus persuaded the poor people that the head or the statue itself had spoken these things by its own understanding."
Christopher Fuerer Von Haimendorff, whose travelogue was published posthumously in 1646 (although relating to a voyage he also made in 1565), recorded:
"It has on its right side in its flank a quadrangular hole through which, as we were informed, in olden days one could go inside and could ascend into the head. Inside there the priests spoke, which the Egyptians took for oracles. Nowadays, this hole is mostly collapsed and filled with sand by the wind..."**
In retrospect, it would appear that both of these travellers were indirectly reporting the discovery of the natural limestone fissure located towards the rear of the Sphinx. Whether or not there had been unrecorded explorations of the Sphinx in the years preceding 1565 is unknown. A portion of the back was possibly exposed by the shifting sands of the desert, revealing the weathered limestone joint.
The natural north–south limestone fissure across the body of the Great Sphinx of Giza, photographed during Émile Baraize’s excavations in the 1920s.
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and description
Image: Archives Lacau, Centre Golenischeff, EPHE, PSL. "Black and White Photo 02496 from Egypt/Giza/Unspecified Sphinx Area 7". (2017) In ARCE Sphinx Project 1979-1983 Archive. Mark Lehner, Megan Flowers, Rebekah Miracle (Eds.). Released: 2017-12-23. Licensed under CC by 4.0
In this photograph from c.1925., the post in the sandbank in the foreground marks the location of the north-south fissure across the body of the Great Sphinx.
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and description
Image: Archives Lacau, Centre Golenischeff, EPHE, PSL. "Black and White Photo 02437 from Egypt/Giza/Unspecified Sphinx Area 7". (2017) In ARCE Sphinx Project 1979-1983 Archive. Mark Lehner, Megan Flowers, Rebekah Miracle (Eds.). Released: 2017-12-23. Licensed under CC by 4.0
In a wonderful example of circular logic, both Helfrich and Haimendorff interpreted this wide vertical fissure as a tunnel entrance that allowed ancient priests to enter the monument to utter oracles - which meant in turn that the head had to be hollow.
And, if the head was hollow, it also meant that it could accommodate the burial of King Harmais. So Christopher Harant, at the end of the 16th century, concluded: "According to Pliny, this head had been the tomb of King Amasis [Harmais], whose body was found in the interior..." **(1598)
In the late 16th and 17th centuries, new discoveries lead to even further embellishments to the evolving mythology of the Great Sphinx.
Prosper Alpin, in his Historia Aegypti Naturalis (Natural History of Egypt, Vol 1 Chapter VI p28-34), related his exploration inside the Great Pyramid in the 1580s :
"we discovered...two square passages...one led toward the great stone Sphinx, and the other toward another pyramid, which is called the “Queen’s Pyramid”, though no entrance is visible from the outside.
We attempted to follow these passages, but we did not proceed far, because we found that the routes had been blocked by fallen stones, and the threat of further collapse filled us with considerable fear."
Why Prosper Alpin thought the unexplored passages would terminate outside the pyramid is unclear. Perhaps he was conflating the existence of the internal passageways in the Great Pyramid, the recent reports of tunnels at the Great Sphinx, and a vague understanding of the causeways that really did run from the pyramids to the lower valley temples, one of which (that of Khafre's pyramid) was immediately adjacent to the Great Sphinx.
In support of this latter possibility, there is a later account by Jean de Thevenot in his book "The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant" (1687) in which he states:
"there is a hole at the end of the pretended Temple of the second Pyramide, by which (some think) there was a way down within the temple to go to the Idol....they entered it by the Hole, which (as I said) is in the pretended Temple of the second Pyramide, or rather by another which is at the side of that Idol and very near it. These two Holes are very narrow, and almost choaked up with sand, wherefore we entred not into them, not knowing besides, but that we might meet with Vipers, or other Venemous Beasts in them."
Thevenot's account is confusing, but it seems likely that both Thevenot and Prosper Alpin had a general awareness of the causeways linking the pyramids and valley temples. They then conflated this new evidence with the notion, established around 1565, that there were tunnels leading into the Great Sphinx.
Whatever the specific explanation is, by the end of the 17th century, it had been established in the popular imagination that tunnels lead to the hollow head of the Great Sphinx and that these tunnels originated in the Great Pyramid.
One of the earliest maps of the Giza plateau drawn by Frederik Louis Norden during his travels in Egypt in 1737–38, published posthumously in 1755 in Voyage d'Egypte et de Nubie and later in The Antiquities, Natural History, Ruins and other Curiosities of Egypt, Nubia and Thebes (1780). It may represent the first illustration of the causeways linking the pyramid temples with the valley temples.
Thevenot also recounts another new element of the tale that was added in the 17th century - a hole in the head of the Great Sphinx:
"It may be said, perhaps, that the Voice [of the oracle in the Sphinx] was uttered by the Crown of the Head, where there is a Hole, into which we endeavoured to have cast some Hooks fastened to Ropes, that I had brought purposely with me, that we might get up, but we could not compass that, because of the height of it; only when we threw up Stones, they rested there. And a Venetian assured me, that he and some others, having got up by means of little Hooks and a Pole, which they brought with them; they found a Hole in the Crown of the Head of it, and having entered therein perceived that it drew narrower and narrower proportionably, as it approached the Breast where it ended. The voice of him that entred then, by the abovementioned Holes, did not come out that way, and therefore it must be concluded, that if any entered it, it must have been by a Ladder in the Nighttime, and that he put himself into the hole that is in the head, out of which the Voice came."
Henry Blunt, who visited the monument a few decades before Thevenot, was also aware of this new discovery but was of another opinion:
"The Egyptians and the Jews who were with us told us that in olden times it had once rendered oracles, and also that it was hollow on top. They had seen several people go in there and come out again at the Pyramid."**
The cavity on top of the head of the Great Sphinx photographed c.1930
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and description
Archives Lacau, Centre Golenischeff, EPHE, PSL. "Color Photo 004094 from Egypt/Giza/Unspecified Sphinx Area 2". (2017) In ARCE Sphinx Project 1979-1983 Archive. Mark Lehner, Megan Flowers, Rebekah Miracle (Eds.). Released: 2017-12-23. Licensed under CC by 4.0
Another view of the cavity on top of the head of the Great Sphinx photographed around 1930.
➡ View the high-resolution illustration and description
Archives Lacau, Centre Golenischeff, EPHE, PSL. "Black and White Photo 02472 from Egypt/Giza/Unspecified Sphinx Area 7". (2017) In ARCE Sphinx Project 1979-1983 Archive. Mark Lehner, Megan Flowers, Rebekah Miracle (Eds.). Released: 2017-12-23. Licensed under CC by 4.0
So by the late 17th century, the consensus understanding of the Great Sphinx was that tunnels lead from the Great Pyramid to the Great Sphinx to allow priests to secretly enter the hollow head of the Sphinx to utter oracles. Alternatively, they could enter and exit the Great Sphinx via the recently discovered hole on the top of the head. Another visitor, F. Vansleb, was then able to conjecture that the (now redundant) fissure at the back of the Sphinx, rather than being the tunnel entrance presumed by Helfricch and Von Haimendorff, was, in fact, the burial place of Harmais/Amasis as originally recounted by Pliny. In The Present state of Egypt, or a New relation of a late voyage into that kingdom performed in the years 1672 and 1673 by F. Vansleb (English Translation 1678) Vansleb wrote:
We saw next the Sphinx...Pliny saith that it was the Tomb of King Amasis. I imagine that this Sphinx was a Sepulchre but we cannot understand that it belong'd to Amasis; for all the Records and Traditions of the Sphinx are lost.
That it is a Tomb may appear, First by its situation, which is in a place which was in former Ages a Burying-place; and near the Pyramides, and mortuary Caves. Secondly it is to be imagined that it was a Sepulchre from its building. In the hinder part is a Cave under ground, of a bigness answerable to that of the head, into which I have looked by an entrance that leads into it; so that it could serve to no other purpose but to keep a dead Corps [corpse]."
The story, originating in Pliny's account and the speculative reports of early European visitors, had finally crystallised into a seemingly coherent and logical tale that explained all the various pieces of evidence and lore known about the pyramids and the Great Sphinx at that time. And so it remained from the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century.
Footnote
**Quotes marked with a double asterisk are drawn from the collection of translated early visitors' accounts compiled by Robert and Olivia Temple in The Sphinx Mystery (2009). Their work provides one of the most accessible English compilations of historical descriptions of the Great Sphinx, and is recommended for readers interested in these early testimonies.