<HTML>Claire,
I guess with the sphinx we need to look at associated evidence (though it's a subjective process deciding which evidence is 'associated' with the sphinx). We need to see how theories of an older (and we mean <i>much</i> older) sphinx affect the generally accepted chronologies for Egypt; we also need to decide whether the alternative hypotheses concerning the weathering of the sphinx are tenable. As far as I understand it, Schoch has a tenable theory which necessitates the rewriting of parts of the chronological sequence developed over the past 50 years or so; the alternative (as I understand it) allows for the weathering patterns observed to fit into the accepted chronological scheme.
I'm no geologist (or egyptologist), so I guess I'd be in the 'wait and see' camp - but until the evidence for an early sphinx is corroborate archaeologically (and I don't count Hancock and Bauval in this respect) I'd be unwilling to dismiss the accepted chronology out of hand. I'd apply Occam's razor in a different way:
'Ok, we have a theory for the sphinx being much older than previously thought; either (a) all our accumulated knowledge regarding Egyptian chronology is wrong and must be re-written (lots of people have been wrong)or (b) there's something wrong with this single theory (one person is wrong - oh, and we have an alternative theory which doesn't contradict the existing evidence)' - take your pick as to which is the most likely by Occam's criteria...
On another note, I find the theorising side of archaeology just as exciting as the hands-on discovery - it's intriguing to see how different social histories have created so many different understandings of the past, often based on the same available evidence. I think understanding why people like Hancock are so popular lies in an appreciation of how archaeological theories develop in the prevailing social milieu.</HTML>
