Well, here’s one, eh? One of those magically and randomly generated posts you predicted would appear in response to your recent online article here at www.grahamhancock.com : ‘A Sincere Double Apology’. Moreso, this letter comes from someone whom essentially qualifies as ‘not publicly noticeable enough’ to warrant a response from you. Whether you choose to respond or not is of course your prerogative, however my objections are worth expressing nonetheless. I have two objections, the first of which is a defense of personal integrity (and not at all necessary to expand upon), and the second an essential objection to your theory of an older Sphinx – or to be more specific – the idea that’s it’s builders (per your scenario date) were an advanced culture.
I’ll make the first one quick.
To suggest someone – anyone – with an opinion on your ideas only deserves a response based on their social standing is, quite ‘frankly’, irresponsible if not downright insulting. The point here is the validity of opinion, not the popular gloss of its presenter. I can’t but think you were hasty in your choice of words, for surely you cannot ignore (no matter the source) valid objections to your theory. I am sure you recognize the acute necessity for addressing points which challenge your ideas. That’s the whole point behind developing a theory -> defending it.
Now for second point. You are under the impression that an older Sphinx translates into advanced culture. In fact, you seem to think it is a requirement. This could not be further from the truth. All it takes is rudimentary interest or reverence in a form to carve it. As a supplement to this point, if there were an advanced group, then the examples for their advanced existence would/should be much more prevalent in the archaeological record, which they are not. We all know there was a presence in Egypt long before the suggested unification date. I mean , c’mon, we’re talking about 500,000 years of ‘human’ presence, so it’s not about if anyone was there. The question you want answered is ‘what was the level of technology’, and have supplied us with a resounding ‘yes’ based on the Sphinx being older. Sorry, but, the age of the Sphinx is not a solid foundation (if one at all) for determining what qualifies as ‘advanced’ or not. All we see is a carved feature. There is nothing advanced about such activities at all; it is not eligible to be categorized as architecture, wherein one would expect the latter definition to imply a need for acute intelligence. If the idea is to show the Sphinx was carved much earlier, fine, I happen to have agreement with it, but you lose out on identifying the level of intelligence required to create it.
This is a valid objection, and is presented in the spirit of professionalism. I would be interested in knowing how you intend to rectify this problem.
R. Avry Wilson
"History is told by those who have hanged heroes"