<HTML>Hi Claire,
> >>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?
There's still not an independent endorsement of Schoch's 5-7,000BC dating by another geologist though is there?
From the link:
"After confirming my observations on the weathering and erosion of the Sphinx, and pointing out that other explanations do not work, Coxill clearly states (page 17): "This [the data and analysis he covers in the preceding portions of his paper] implies that the Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times." Coxill then discusses very briefly the seismic work that Thomas Dobecki and I pursued and my estimate of an initial date of 5,000 to 7,000 B.C. for the earliest parts of the Sphinx based on the seismic data. He neither supports nor refutes this portion of my work, but simply writes (page 17): "Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible -- until more conclusive evidence comes to light." I can understand that he could take this stance, although perhaps I feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the seismic analysis we did. Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper (page 17), continues: "Nevertheless, it [the Sphinx] is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx -- in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 BC."
Bottom line: Coxill agrees with the heart of my analysis and likewise concludes that the oldest portions of the Sphinx date to before dynastic times; that is, prior to circa 3000 B.C."
Coxhill is saying pre-3,000 BC and Reader is saying 2,800-2,600 BC so who independently supports 5-7,000 BC?
> >>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 think they are trying to to some extent but as opinion is split on what erosion features are attributable to particular weathering amongst the experts I don't see how any of us can say Schoch is completely right (or anybody else for that matter).
I thought the
> time period just came from the climatic records. Am I
> misunderstanding you?
Schoch's dating is based on there only being sufficient rainfall before 5,000 BC. Reader thinks that there would have been a transitional period between 5,000-2,200 BC that could still account for substantial PI erosion of the limestone.
> >>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.
If Schoch's hypothesis is not supported by archaeological evidence then it fails on that basis.
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 don't think so. Why don't Harrell, Reader, Coxhill, Gauri or Bourdeau agree with Schoch? Being professional geologists they are in a better position to test what he's saying than I am. If Schoch cannot satisfy his peers and critics why should any of the rest of us accept them?
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?
In a word yes. If we've got bundles of verifiable and checkable evidence on one side and one man with an educated opinion who cannot prove his contention within his own discipline I think it is far more sensible to reserve our judgment. If archaeological evidence turns up in Schoch's favour then we can start to take him seriously but not any sooner than that.
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.
So why don't any other geologists agree with 5-7,000 BC then?
> >>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? :-)
History - law - politics share a lot of common ground don't they?
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~
Can we put 'em all on Survivor and see who wins?:-)
> >>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~
The key words in that phrase are "if he proves" - I agree completely.
> >>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.
Could it have been suicide, lightning strike, heat exhaustion, old age or an animal kill? My point was if you just have a dead body and nothing more then the rest is just speculation. However, if you have evidence (head wound, a bullet, spear or arrow head or lets say the bones have teeth marks) then you can start to make an educated guess.
Schoch is saying only a couple of things - the weathering is due to rainfall and this could only have happened pre-5,000 BC. Nobody is disputing that rainfall hasn't played a part in the limestone erosion (it does rain in Egypt and torrentially at times) just the timeframe required for it to happen. My point is that there is not another independent geologist that supports Schoch's date of 5-7,000 BC. So why should any of us take Schoch's word as the truth and ignore any other experts that have an opinion?
> >>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~
You sure? href="[
www.cs.colorado.edu] here</a> for a definition:-).
> >>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?)
Isn't there a phrase "nice guys come last"?:-)
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
