To give one example of the poor logic in the Sphinx book he wrote, he based most of his argument for an older, 13,500 year old dating of the Sphinx based on the fact that the lower layers of the Sphinx, and the walls of the Sphinx enclosure, were more heavily eroded than surrounding structures on the Giza plateau. However, he completely ignored that the Sphinx enclosure is at a lower elevation than the rest of the plateau, and therefore, the natural drainage path for flash flood waters that desert areas are subject to. Of course the natural drainage path for flood waters experiences more erosion than surrounding areas of higher elevation.
That is something one would learn in a high school level geology class, but Hancock either didn’t realize it, or pretended not to know about it since it didn’t support his preferred theory. Whether it was ignorance or dishonesty, neither speaks well of his scholarship.
Psychedelic-Surrealist Artist - have also been fascinated with the huge, stone ruins that are found around the planet. Here in the USA, there are a number of such relics of a bygone civilization in Montana. You can see parts of them at:
https://www.montanamegaliths.com/
Boogieman - your skepticism is noted and you are welcome to your opinion. The plethora of evidence that shows widespread use of massive, shaped stones raises serious questions about the accepted storyline of current anthropology, IMHO.
There is another theory that conflicts with Schoch: that in the days of the Sphinx, the Nile came up to and entered the enclosure where there are remnants of a wharf, as well as what looks like gate hinges for locks.
During the flood, silt was deposited in the enclosure where ceremonies using boats were preformed. The silt swallowed up the enclosure, and it had to be dredged by hauling the silted water up the enclosure, leaving the vertical erosion marks, the horizontal marks were caused by the flooding itself.
None of that dates the Sphinx beyond the ‘traditional’ view. Not that I support that view myself.
Roustau is the old name of the Sphinx monument. I go with the idea that the Sphinx is very old, much older that Schoch proposes, going back to the time when the Sphinx had a jackal’s head for “Anubis who in Roustau, guards the Land of the Dead”, facing East toward, not Leo, but to a very distant time when Cains Major and Sirius rose in the East - a very very long time ago.
If you look at the monument with open eyes, you will see that it does not have the body of a lion, but of a dog. The Egyptians would never carve a dog’s body where a lion’s was meant. Lions sit one way and dogs sit another, and both have different tail positions when at rest.
Short version.
You missed the key point...he wasn’t talking about erosion due to flood runoff...he was talking surface pit erosion that is only caused by years of exposure to heavy rainfall. That part of Egypt has been too dry to cause such pitting in the “standard postulated age” of the Sphinx.