THE SPHINX

The layers in the tomb of Debehen are not, in Fact, the same as those in the Sphinx. Certainly all the layers at Giza are part of the Mokattam Formation, but from the bottom to the top of the sequence they vary considerably in quality. Starting at the edge of the Khafre causeway, which is the south side of the Sphinx ditch, one can trace the Sphinx layers southwest. The top of the causeway is formed by layers 4 and 5 as we numbered them in the Sphinx profile. South of the Sphinx ditch and causeway, the surface slopes radically to the south. It is possible to follow the Sphinx layers down this slope, then, proceeding through the cemetery of rock-cut tombs to the west, toward Debehen, you can trace layer 5 and then layer 6 (with some gaps between quarry blocks and tombs). Proceeding west through this quarry, which was later converted to a cemetery of rock-cut tombs, it becomes apparent that as the ground surface rises, layers equivalent to the neck and head of the Sphinx and, farther west, layers that are higher (i.e., younger) in the Mokattam sequence than the Sphinx's head are exposed. Farther west and higher in elevation, the layers of the Debehen tomb are younger, closer to the top frosting in the "layer cake" of limestone, than the Member II layers of the Sphinx, which are at the very bottom.

Schoch also fails to mention in his public presentations the simple fact that different limestone layers, like those in the Debehen tomb and the Sphinx, weather in different ways. Angularity and roundness of weathered rock profiles are due as much to the rate at which one layer grades into another as to different weathering agents. In fact, between Debehen and the Sphinx there are Old Kingdom rock surfaces with both rounded angular profiles. For Schoch to present a creditable argument about erosion patterns and the date of the Sphinx relative to Old Kingdom tombs, he must offer more evidence than a single photograph of one tomb facade. His argument should at least begin with a detailed Stratigraphic correlation that demonstrates he is not comparing apples and oranges. So many factors can affect the erosion of a stone surface that surface erosion is simply not a good basis for dating stone monuments or for postulating the existence of a civilization lost somewhere in Epipalaeolithic or Neolithic times.