<HTML>Well, if Schoch ideed wrote this line:
"Since this since and front weathering is 50 percent to 100 percent deeper, it is reasonable to estimate that the excavation at those points is 50 to 100 percent older than the now 4,500-year-old work tat the Sphinx’s rump."
it is a sure sign of bad science and scholarship, where my alarm bells are ringing.
To explain this: Schoch himself argues, that the climate in the years BEFORE the OK were much more humid. I have seen several climate tables, for example in Beatrix Midant-Reynes "The Prehistory of Egypt" which suppoerts that suggestion.
Therefore we have a climate cut somewhere during AE times (and, as suggestes lately, at the end of the OK. With dry, less eroding climate to the present and wetter, more eroding climate to the past.
Now I don ot the funtion of Erosion against Rainfall, but clearly it is not a linear function. It maybe even can be squared to the amount of rainfall, but what is sure is that it is impossible to project the erosion of the dryer climate half back into the wetter past.
Another thing: Peope like Gauri were angry with Schoch because he came to Egypt with an agenda (and not without any presumption) and was looking only for objects supporting his evidence. So he compares erosion structures of MUDBRICK from the 1st dyn. to the ones on the Sphinx and claiming, that these (totally different eroding) structures do not look as old as the Sphinx. But he did NOT look int similar limestone eroding patterns like in Lisht or even in Giza: At the "4th pyramid" of Chentkaus. I made some great shots of this structure showing clearly the same fissures and vertical cracks, soft and round erosion bodies like the "rain structures" on the Sphinx. But it is out of question that Chentkaus' building is from predynastic times...
I will have the pictures online during the next week, I will announce it before.
FD</HTML>
