Most recently, an Italian researcher has suggested that satellite radar scans of the Giza Plateau point to the existence of a large, symmetrical structure buried beneath the sand. Among the arguments cited is the so-called “Dream Stelae” positioned between the paws of the Great Sphinx, whose imagery, the researcher claims, could hint at the existence of a second Sphinx.
The Italian researcher further claims that radar data reveals vertical shafts and passage-like formations beneath one of the plateau’s hills, features he associates with structures linked to the Sphinx itself.
However, leading Egyptologists remain unconvinced and describe the theory as “a pattern of speculation outside the realm of credible science”.
Miroslav Bárta, director of the Czech mission in Abusir, dismissed such theories. “These claims keep recurring,” he said. “Yet none has ever been scientifically confirmed.”
The arguments often lean heavily on modern technologies, particularly satellite imaging. But Bárta urged caution. While such tools have transformed archaeological research in many contexts, he stressed that they are not without limitations, especially in a place like the Giza Plateau where the bedrock, composed of dense marine sediment, significantly restricts the ability to conduct deep subsurface mapping.
“This is about the physical limits of what is possible,” he said.
Bárta told Al-Ahram Weekly that the interpretation of the “Dream Stelae”, which is frequently mentioned by supporters of the “second Sphinx” theory, misunderstands ancient Egyptian artistic conventions.
In Egyptian iconography, he explained, it is common to depict the same king or deity multiple times within a single scene to illustrate ritual actions from different perspectives. “These are not separate entities, but repeated representations of the same figure,” he said. Interpreting them otherwise reflects “a frustrating lack of education in Egyptology.”
From both an archaeological and geological standpoint, Bárta is clear that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a hidden city or major undiscovered structures beneath the Giza Plateau.
He said that rigorous research, enhanced by cutting-edge technologies, alongside key historical sources such as the papyri of Khufu discovered at the Red Sea, have already provided substantial insight into most current questions concerning the real mysteries of the Giza Pyramid complex.
Far from being shrouded in mystery, much of the site is now understood within a well-established academic framework.
Mohamed Megahed, director of the mission at the Saqqara Necropolis, with extensive field experience in Old Kingdom pyramids, asserted that although such theories may be appealing to the public imagination, they remain unsupported within the framework of established archaeological research.
He explained that in decades of fieldwork, including excavation, restoration, and documentation efforts at major pyramid sites such as Giza, Saqqara, and Abusir, no evidence has ever emerged to suggest the existence of a hidden city beneath Giza.
Megahed clarified that the techniques used such as ground-penetrating radar and electrical resistivity can indeed detect subsurface anomalies, but anomalies are not evidence. Without direct excavation and verification, they remain ambiguous signals that can just as easily reflect natural geological formations as man-made structures.
“In a geologically complex environment like Giza, where limestone layers and voids can produce misleading readings, interpretation requires restraint. Such data must be treated with scepticism unless corroborated by excavation,” he said.
The “Dream Stelae”, another pillar of the claims, is similarly being misread, according to Megahed. Decades of scholarship have established that its imagery and inscriptions refer symbolically and religiously to the Great Sphinx itself.
There is no accepted academic interpretation that supports the idea of multiple sphinxes. Assertions to the contrary rely on speculative readings or non-standard readings of the iconography, he said.
Modern Egyptology continues to uncover new insights, but these advances are incremental, evidence-based, and rigorously tested, not the result of dramatic reinterpretations unsupported by data, he added.
NOT CREDIBLE: “I do not find these claims scientifically or archaeologically credible,” said Mark Lehner, director and president of Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA).
He highlighted that any such interpretations must be rigorously evaluated by experts in the field because technological claims, no matter how sophisticated, require scrutiny before being accepted as evidence.
The interpretation of the “Dream Stelae” is, in Lehner’s view, a clear misreading of ancient Egyptian symbolism. He pointed out that duality was a fundamental concept in Egyptian thought and artistic expression.
The imagery on the stelae follows this same tradition. King Thutmose IV is depicted with variations in regalia, different crowns, a head scarf, and skirts (kilts), likely intended to present the king in multiple aspects rather than to suggest multiple physical entities. There are no Egyptologists, Lehner said, who interpret these double images as evidence of another Sphinx.
Moreover, geology presents a formidable challenge to these claims. The Giza Plateau is formed from the Middle Eocene Moqattam limestone formation, sloping gradually towards the Nile Valley. According to Lehner, this geological context would make the idea of a vast, carved underground city not only unlikely, but practically impossible.
The physical properties of the bedrock do not support such large-scale subterranean construction, he stressed.
He also raised concerns about the scale of some of the more extreme assertions. Certain theories, he noted, propose the existence of cylindrical shafts extending more than 680 m beneath the Pyramid of Khafre, with even deeper chambers below that would extend their bedrock structures nearly a kilometre deep.
Such claims, he suggested, are wildly disproportionate, not only to the pyramid itself, which originally stood at around 143 m, but to anything known from ancient Egyptian engineering.
This is not to say that Giza has yielded all its secrets. Lehner acknowledged that new discoveries are still being made, pointing to the recent ScanPyramids project’s discovery, made by modern scanning technologies, of a nine-metre corridor behind the entrance chevrons of Khufu’s Pyramid.
But this discovery, he asserted, is grounded in verifiable data, not sweeping, speculative narratives.
Egyptologist Zahi Hawass, a former minister of antiquities, dismantled the arguments for a second Sphinx. He explained that the existence of multiple sphinxes in the “Dream Stelae” clearly refers to a single Horemakhet, which is the Great Sphinx.
There is no ambiguity in the text, and no suggestion of duplication. The idea that the imagery points to more than one Sphinx, Hawass said, stems from a misunderstanding of ancient Egyptian artistic conventions.
Symmetry, while undeniably central to Egyptian art, cannot be taken as proof of physical replication, he said.
“The ancient Egyptians valued balance,” Hawass explained, “but that does not mean every monument had a twin.” Artistic duality, whether in temple layouts, iconography, or religious symbolism, operates within specific contexts. Extending it to justify the existence of an entirely separate monument is a leap unsupported by evidence.
The “Inventory Stelae”, known also as the “Khufu’s Daughter Stelae”, is another piece of evidence sometimes used to support the theory. But it has long been recognised by scholars as a product of a much later period, not the Old Kingdom as its content might suggest.
Linguistic inconsistencies, stylistic features, and the form of the deities depicted all point to its composition in the Late Period. Many scholars believe it was created by priests seeking to elevate the antiquity of the Isis Temple by associating it with earlier royal monuments, including the Sphinx itself.
In Hawass’ view, relying on such a text as historical evidence is fundamentally flawed. Beyond textual analysis, archaeology offers no support for the theory.
The Giza Plateau is one of the most extensively excavated and studied archaeological sites in the world, and areas south of the Great Sphinx, where the supposed second twin is often placed, have already been investigated, revealing well-documented structures such as the pyramid town of Queen Khentkaus.
No traces of a second Sphinx have ever been found, nor even indications of a suitable location where one might have existed.
Moreover, Hawass said, the Sphinx itself is carved directly from the natural limestone bedrock, and any comparable monument would have required a similar geological setting. Yet no such formation, or evidence of its removal, exists in the proposed area.
Some versions of the theory attempt to explain this absence by suggesting that the second Sphinx was destroyed, even attributing its disappearance to a lightning strike. Hawass dismissed this idea outright. While ancient environmental events may have affected flora or surface features, the idea that a massive rock-cut statue could be obliterated without leaving any physical trace is, from both a geological and archaeological standpoint, unsustainable.
He added that the existing Sphinx is firmly tied, both architecturally and contextually, to the Pyramid complex of King Khafre. Archaeological features, including the causeway and associated structures, clearly situate the monument within Khafre’s reign.
Its placement, orientation, and symbolic role all reflect a deliberate religious and astronomical function, and one that does not require, nor accommodate, a second counterpart, he said.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 2 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: