<HTML>Hi again Duncan
>>hmm. Consider this - those that agree with Schoch: several best selling alternative authors (JAW et al dispute Schoch's dating to 5-7,000 BC but they all agree on an older Sphinx) and several million of their readers. Yet not one independent geologist has been named who will endorse what Schoch claims. Why is that?
[
robertschoch.homestead.com]
I think you're slightly under reporting this?
>>The fact is that the geological weathering of limestone is a complex process and involves rain, wind, sand, salts, sunlight etc. Which specific mechanisms can be said to account for specific erosion features? I don't think you can categorise specific features with independent mechanisms in different time periods do you?
Isn't that what ALL the geologists are doing? I thought the time period just came from the climatic records. Am I misunderstanding you?
>>On the basis of the available archaeological evidence. You can dismiss the direct attribution of the Sphinx with Khafre but at least there is some circumstantial evidence. Schoch doesn't have a bean.
That's not testing though. The hypothesis is based on the available evidence - the fouth dynasty context, the stela thing etc......you're not testing it by applying the same evidence - that's circular. I originally asked JoeRoyle how you tested these sorts of hypotheses. New evidence came to light - ie geological weathering evidence......how do we deal with it? Do we say - oh it contradicts our existing interpretation and therefore we should mistrust it? Schoch has a 'bean' - he has what he sees as precipitation induced weathering. And seismic data, and contrasts this against similar momuments at Giza (4th dynasty) that exhitbit all the weathering except the precipitation stuff. Or so I understand it.
>>History is a process of deductive logic. The Sphinx is closely associated with a predominantly 4th dynasty site. The evidence for a pre-3,000 BC settlement at Giza is non-existent. If this were a murder case and the Sphinx were a dead body there is no way you could prove that the murder occurred 7-9,000 years ago on the basis of one mans opinion. Especially when the opposition have other equally qualified experts on their team.
Seems to be slightly different from your answer to Anthony :-) Interesting point on the court of law - why does this analogy crop up so much? :-) Anyway from what I've seen of courts of law (mostly films and forensic evidence shows on Discovery) there is weighting of the evidence as per Schoch. Eg 10 witnesses provide an alibi (sp?) but one scientist produces dna evidence to the contrary and the jury are directed to follow the scientist. But I don't know if geology is hard science while archaeology is interpretation based, or whether geology is also subjective. That's what I meant by - does geology trump archaeology? I was asking. If it was geology verus archaeology who would win? ~lol~
>>The burden of proof rests with Schoch - no archaeological evidence to support him means he cannot prove there was a human culture at that site that carved the Sphinx when he says they did.
You see I would say that if he proves that the Sphinx was carved then, then we could pretty well accept that there must have been human culture there at the time. ~shrug~
>>I wasn't very clear. The question asked is who built the Sphinx and when? This can only be answered satisfactorily on the basis of the archaeological evidence. If you don't have proof of a human presence or a culture from the time frame claimed how can we prove that humans were even responsible for carving it?
As above. To go back to your dead body thing, if we have dead body and proof that it was placed in a particular place, or that they were murdered there, then I should have thought that we can be pretty certain that someone else would have put it there, or killed them there. Would someone worry about lack of immediate evidence that anyone else has ever been to the scene? It would be a bit pedantic wouldn't it? Clearly someone else would have had to been involved. Of course you could speculate about pixies committing the crime in the face of lack of proof that another human had visited the scene I suppose.
>>. The geological opinion is undecided.
2. Only one 'expert' geologist claims the Sphinx was carved at a time when we have no evidence of a human occupation of the site.
3. The archaeological evidence is internally consistent and can be cross referenced with multiple sources.
4. Absolutely none of the archaeological evidence supports the possibility of a pre-3,000 BC Sphinx.
Thanks for this.
>>Some alternative opinions based on dubious archaeoastronomy claim the Sphinx may have been around since 10,500 BC or earlier. Should we accept them over Schoch and orthodox Egyptology? How about if the chemistry of the rock indicated it was carved in 15,000 BC? Independent disciplines do not take precedence over one another just because we favour a particular interpretation. If you have an abundance of archaeological evidence that all points to habitation of the site at one specific time and none that supports an alternative independently derived date then you have to go with the archaeological evidence. Particularly when the alternative date is derived by a method that cannot be confirmed by independent experts in the same discipline.
Straw man thingy ? ~lol~
>>Do people trust Schoch because he speaks from a position of authority (and if so why not trust the educated and established geologists that oppose him?) or because people want him to be right?
Is this a personal remark? ~lol~ I'd quite like him to be right - seems like a nice guy to me :-) (is that what you meant?)
Cheers Duncan
Claire</HTML>
