<HTML>Hi Duncan
>>Coxhill is saying pre-3,000 BC
Well I only said you under reported it :-) Coxhill also agrees that other explanations don't work.
>>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).
Sure.
>>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.
I think (but I could be wrong) that Schoch is also relying on the Seismic data?
>>If Schoch's hypothesis is not supported by archaeological evidence then it fails on that basis.
Well that's clear. So you are rating archaeological above geological. I'm still not fully convinced. But only from a layman's perspective. I've always thought of geology as a hard science. I'm not sure how I would justify that 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 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 didn't mean that. I meant - in what way has the archaeological evidence been tested?
>>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.
Again, clear. You put archaeological evidence above geological evidence.
>>So why don't any other geologists agree with 5-7,000 BC then?
Good point, and I don't know :-)
>>Can we put 'em all on Survivor and see who wins?:-)
That's what I meant :-) So how do I decide? (as a layman)
>>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?
Well I think that Schoch makes an impressive comprehensive case. I'm not ignoring anyone though. I just think that Schoch seems the most impressive on this.
>>> Straw man thingy ? ~lol~
>>You sure? href="[
www.cs.colorado.edu] here for a definition:-).
Sure ~lol~
>>Isn't there a phrase "nice guys come last"?:-)
Is there? In what context? I'll take your word for it. But I was really just joking before anyway - I couldn't think of a proper answer :-)
But thanks for the replies, they help :-)
Claire</HTML>
