<HTML>This is Michaels list; (slightly edited Michael - I removed a couple of comments not related to the list)
*******************************************************
1. Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner, "The Sphinx: Who Built It and Why?"
Archaeology, Vol. 47, No. 5 (September/October 1994), pp. 30-41.
This is taken from Billington's overview. You can find it:
[
members.aol.com]
"But Hawass and Lehner are less clear about when the earliest stone facing blocks were applied. On one page (p. 37), they imply that the original body was finished with casing stone: 'The bedrock surface is rough and uneven but against its surface there is an inner casing of large blocks of fine quality limestone, quarried from places like Turah, across the Nile Valley, which was used for finishes of stone buildings.' But on the next page (p. 38), they observe: 'Unless we get better exposures of the lower part of the core body, there is just not enough evidence to determine whether the 4th Dynasty builders began, or how far along they had progressed, filling in and building up with masonry the weak spots in the Sphinx.'
The authors prefer to date the oldest limestone facing blocks, which they
consider the first repair campaign, to the New Kingdom. 'Phase I filled in
the body after the surface formed from Member II bedrock had eroded
drastically into a profile of deep recesses and rounded protrusions.' The
Old Kingdom appearance of these earliest facing stones, which resemble the blocks lining the Khafra causeway, suggests to Lehner that the New Kingdom restorers used causeway blocks for the restoration (p. 41)."
2. Zahi Hawass, The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present
(American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 34 pp.
Again, Billington.
"Hawass rejects the idea that the facing stones were repair blocks stripped from the Khafra causeway, although he allows that New Kingdom restorers may have commissioned some new blocks cut in the Old Kingdom style (p. 26)."
I'll add that I have read this in several places. I'll find more references
in time. For now, this is enough.
3. [
guardians.net]
Here Hawass is saying that T-IV had OK stones put back on, because they were falling off. This is, perhaps, relates to his position that stones had
been placed by 4th Dyn. carvers (he cites several reasons that this might be the case- rock quality being one).. If you ask me, none of them are a slam dunk. This could, contrarily, establish that there WERE 4th Dyn. repairs.
4. [
members.aol.com]
This is Billington's opinion.
"The oldest facing stones appear to be of Old Kingdom age. Dr. Lehner has
suggested that Old Kingdom masonry was taken from elsewhere to face the monument in New Kingdom times, and in this way the Old Kingdom appearance of the facing stone does not contradict a later date of application. Dr. Hawass holds that the facing stonework along the base was done in the Old Kingdom and he argues that the monument was finished then too. According to Dr. Hawass, the main body of the Sphinx has a tendency to loosen and eject facing stone over time. This "breathing" of the rock may have caused any upper facing stonework to break down, exposing the body stone to erosion. The restorers of the New Kingdom may have simply put back the Old Kingdom blocks that had fallen down. This might reconcile the positions of Hawass and Lehner if Lehner observed only the weathered rock higher up the monument. But the two scholars have not reconciled their views in their joint publications to date."
5. Lehner, COMPLETE PYRAMIDS.
On p. 128-129 he attributes the first phase of repairs to, "18th dynasty
(?)." Seems hardly certain. He makes no mention of the OK stones being
used.
6. Schoch. EROSION PROCEESSES ON THE GREAT SPHINX AND ITS DATING
"The first of several ancient repair campaigns to the weathered body of the Sphinx was done with typical Old Kingdom style masonry, but the core body was.. already deeply weathered."
7. Schoch, '92 KMT paper
"The earliest of these repairs. were carried out using what appear to be
Old Kingdom-style masonry techniques (14)."
He cites (footnote 14) that "Gauri and his colleagues" are saying that these stone have, "experienced 5,000 years of exposure to local conditions," assuming, of course, that these had to be applied during OK times. Then, still in footnote 14, Hawass says, "It seems that the Sphinx underwent restoration during the Old Kingdom because the analysis of the samples from on the right rear leg proved to be of an Old Kingdom date."
Then, Schoch continues, ".Lehner has analyzed the repairs to the Sphinx (15) and concluded that, despite his own evidence to the contrary, 'To seek agreement with known historical facts., we should probably expect the earliest restoration to have been done in the New Kingdom. (16)'"
(footnote 15) - Lehner 1980 and Hamblin, Smithsonian, April 1966.
(footnote 16) - Lehner 1980
***********************************************************</HTML>
