<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> Hello black and white guy ~lol~
I'm not averse to shades of grey.......
> Rather then relying on my memory, which I've just told you is
> crap, you would be better off reserving judgement on Schoch
> until you've read his book for yourself.
You would not believe the height of my pile ! I've still got West's "Serpent in the Sky" to read.......
> >>Have a good look at something like FOG and see how many
> facts there are in it !
>
> I'm don't really feel like defending FOTG, but I wonder what
> you mean to be honest. What are you calling the facts around
> this age of the sphinx? The 4th dynasty feel? The ambiguous
> stela? The perhaps resemble of the face to Khafre? The
> statues uncovered in the temple?
No, I'm talking about fundamental archaeological principles that the likes of GH are either unaware of or deliberately ignore. Things like ceramic typography and sequence dating. People leave traces. Think how many people would have been involved in carving something like the Sphinx - and for how long ? Is it reasonable to believe that that sort of effort would not - somewhere - be traceable in the archaeological record. See this <a href="[
www.pbs.org]; to Mark Lehner's excavations. OK ignore the typo that says the GP was being built in 3200BC ! Look at the quotes:
"People have been excavating in Egypt for the last 200 years. No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."
"The pottery, for example. All the pottery you find at Giza looks like the pottery of the time of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure, the kings who built these pyramids in what we call the Fourth Dynasty, the Old Kingdom. We study the pottery and how it changes over the broad sweep, some 3,000 years. There are people who are experts in all these different periods of pottery or Egyptian ceramics."
With the exception of a few slightly (few hundred years) earlier artifacts that Colin Reader uses to support his contention of an early dynastic Sphinx, Giza is <i>crawling</i> with Old Kingdom pottery and artifacts.
> We're going round in circles.
I'm not !
> The archaeological evidence is more convincing than GH
> portrayed it, but not overwhelming.
I'm sorry but the archaeological evidence is pretty conclusive. There's been modern, scientific, excavations at Giza for 100+ years - since the time of Petrie. These excavators weren't the earlier <i>treasure hunters</i> but methodical scientists. And what have they found to indicate a population of advanced stone carvers thousands of years before the pharaohs ? Sweet football association to put it mildly ! As I asked above, how many people, and for how long, would have been required to carve something that size ?
> The geological evidence
> is comprehensive, but not universally accepted:-).
By all accounts most of Schoch's peers reject his position.
> You can
> argue either way. But I think it is misrepresentative to
> classify it into science versus pseudoscience - misleading
> too. Well thats what I think anyway.
Science works on facts, pseudoscience works on supposition. I have no wish to denigrate Schoch but I am very disappointed if he is having to employ that sort of argument to support his position.
> Thanks for the discussion John :-)
Pleasure:-)
John</HTML>
