<HTML>Hi Claire,
> >>Coxhill is saying pre-3,000 BC
>
> Well I only said you under reported it :-) Coxhill also
> agrees that other explanations don't work.
fair enough:-)
> >>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?
Yeah but it looks like others don't accept the conclusions he makes from that.
> >>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.
And archaeology is not then? I still think if you're looking to prove an earlier Sphinx the archaeological evidence is essential and overrides any other opinion.
> I didn't mean that. I meant - in what way has the
> archaeological evidence been tested?
I don't think anybody disputes it but i may be wrong:-(.
> Again, clear. You put archaeological evidence above
> geological evidence.
Certainly in this case. If the geology was more clear cut, if it were an established and verifiable method that was used, if anybody actually agreed 100% with Schoch I'd give him more credit......
> >>Can we put 'em all on Survivor and see who wins?:-)
>
> That's what I meant :-) So how do I decide? (as a layman)
I can only explain how I interpret it. I may be wrong but i think there is a good reason why Schoch is not generally accepted to be correct within Egyptology and its not because the 'experts' have their head in the sand over this.
> 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.
Fair enough. impressive? maybe but apparently not within his own discipline.
> >>> Straw man thingy ? ~lol~
>
> >>You sure?
> href="[
www.cs.colorado.edu] here for a definition:-).
>
> Sure ~lol~
Well I didn't think so. So Bleurgh ~sticks tongue out~
> >>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 :-)
Probably comes from some dumb Arny flick:-).
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
