<HTML>Hi JoeRoyle
I'm just guessing here, but I would say:
If you are testing things, then presumably you have your hypothesis and then predict from it. If new evidence confirms your hypothesis you could say it was tested.
Lets take the Sphinx. Evidence was the inventory stela, the dream stela thing and statues found in the sphinx temple as well as a general resemblance of the Sphinx to Khafre. (just for argument). Then new evidence presents itself - ie Schochs theory. But the new evidence didn't confirm the hypothesis that Khafre built the Sphinx....so are we obliged to re-date the Sphinx? Or not?
What your application seems to me to do it to say:
Any evidence that turns up that doesn't confirm the hypothesis can be dismissed because of Occams Razor because dropping the hypothesis would mean more people had got it wrong. So you see what I mean? So how are you testing it? How is that science?
What I don't know is how we pit the geological evidence against the archaeological evidence. Do we put it all together? Does geology trump archaeology? Are there vested interests involved? Does Schoch have a good enough case? Does archaeology have a good enough case?
Claire</HTML>
