<HTML>Hi Claire,
This sounds familiar:-).
> 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?
The problem we face in dating the Sphinx on the basis of the geology is that there is no consensus opinion within the discipline as to how old the Sphinx may be. Schoch is saying it was carved out of the bedrock between 5-7,000 BC. Whilst the geologists he claims support his contention, Reader and Coxhill, are claiming it was carved during the early dynastic period (ca 2,800 BC) or the late pre-dynastic period, respectively. In addition yet more geologists seem happy with the original contention in Egyptology that the Sphinx was a 4th Dynasty monument (Harrell, Gauri, Alex Bourdeau to name but a few).
Schoch may appear to have accounted for all the interpretations of geological weathering on the Sphinx but he is still the only geologist claiming the Sphinx dates to 5-7,000 BC. Either there are no other geologists that share Schoch's conclusions (clearly there are some agreed there was PI weathering but none that agree with the date Schoch assigns to the Sphinx) or just none that are prepared to stick their neck out and offer their full support to his hypothesis. If the latter is the case then why not - what have they got to lose in doing so?
> 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?
If I can turn the question around - why should we accept one persons opinion (admittedly an educated opinion) when there is a total lack of evidence with which to establish and cross reference it with? Is that science? If so how can we test Schoch's hypothesis? Can other geologists confirm Schoch's dating of the Sphinx using his methods and data?
There is no archaeological evidence that can lend credence to Schoch's contention of an advanced culture at Giza prior to the late pre-dynastic period. Without any collaborative evidence Schoch's hypothesis remains unproven and unproveable.
> 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?
We're discussing archaeology so the archaeological evidence will always take precedence. It is possible the Sphinx may have been carved earlier than Egyptologists currently assume but if we have no evidence for an earlier human occupation how can archaeologists study or interpret anything about them? Instead we can only speculate on possibilities. The Sphinx may have originally been a lion and been recarved later but is there any evidence at all that could support that possibility? Why a lion specifically and not a baboon or a giraffe? If we know nothing about this hypothetical culture that may have possibly carved a lion from the bedrock in Giza how can we study them? Unless there is evidence that can be dug up, studied and evaluated then they remain an entirely fictional culture and completely outside of the realm of archaeology.
> Are there vested
> interests involved?
No - everyone wants to know the truth but they have different ways of seeking it. Schoch wants to be taken seriously but he will not unless any archaeological evidence is found to support his contention of an earlier Sphinx.
> Does Schoch have a good enough case?
Clearly not - who are these 500 geologists that J.A. West claims support Schoch? Are they part of an anonymous secret society that shun all publicity? If Schoch has a good case why hasn't one single independent researcher in Geology or Egyptology publicly backed his conclusions (by that I mean his date of 5-7,000 BC)?
> Does archaeology have a good enough case?
We can never know the complete picture as the archaeological record will always be an incomplete one. However, Archaeologists and Egyptologists are only interested in the truth. They can only base their opinions and conclusions from the evidence that is left for them. Perhaps they've missed the important pre-Dynastic evidence that would support Schoch's hypothesis but considering the wealth of archaeology conducted at the site that would seem most unlikely.
KRs,
Duncan</HTML>
