<HTML>Hi Duncan!
(and yikes)
>>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).
When I posted that Occams Razor thing on the GH MB lots of people (well at least one anyway) thought that if you compare Schoch et al with Gauri et al then Occams Razor would mean that Schoch wins. What do you think of that?
>>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?
I don't know - you tell me.....how can we test Schoch's hypothesis? How can we test the Khafre built the Sphinx hypothesis? And I suppose I'm working on the assumption that other geologists will either back or dismiss Schoch's dating - we're in the annoying pre peer review period here.
>>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.
Why unproveable?
>>We're discussing archaeology so the archaeological evidence will always take precedence.
Is this a science norm? Suppose we were talking geology, and the Sphinx came up in conversation - would the geological evidence take precedence then? As you can see - I don't understand :-)
>>Instead we can only speculate on possibilities.
I agree. It's OK though isn't it?
>>No - everyone wants to know the truth but they have different ways of seeking it.
I didn't mean sleazy stuff, I meant along the lines of Anthony's post.
>>Schoch wants to be taken seriously but he will not unless any archaeological evidence is found to support his contention of an earlier Sphinx.
So you think that the archaeological evidence is the important evidence here - that archaeology trumps geology. As in above. Why?
Thanks for the help :-)
Claire</HTML>
