<HTML>Hey Claire -
Thanks for the reply. This issue interests me also.
(1) Archaeological evidence vs. geologic evidence. I would suggest that when investigating an issue of archaeological importance (as the Sphinx issue is), archaeological evidence trumps geological speculations (which is what Schoch's argument boils down to). I would no more claim that an archaeologist can "deduce" the age of a mountain range from archaeological excavation than a geologist can argue (in the face of the archaeological evidence) that a human artifact has been misdated by millennia based on his (disputed) opinion of geologic weathering on that artifact. To a degree, it's a clash of disciplines. But it's also a case of bad and blinkered methodology.
In short, geology is not an archaeological dating tool. As you put it, it's too blunt. I agree. No other human monument is dated by geologic erosion patterns alone, let alone in the face of hard datable evidence of other sorts.
(2) Schoch's presentation of excavation in Egypt. This specific question is way outside may area of expertise. I suggest you address it to Mikey or John Wall, perhaps in a new thread. However, I will say that Giza is a plateau well above the river and that Egypt has yielded several important pre-dynastic and Neolithic sites. If a pre-dynastic culture built the Sphinx on the Giza Plateau, it would have left SOMETHING of itself there, as did all subsequent AE occupations/activities at the site. This is not a question of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (a much abused dictum, by the way). I say, "It is. Unequivocally." The Schoch/West/Hancock/Bauval pre-AE culture (take your pick) is simply nowhere to be found in the record, and it's an otherwise large and deep and rich record. So that absence is damning.
(3) Archaeological evidence for OK Sphinx. I'm not sure what Schoch considers "circumstantial" but OK pottery found under blocks carved for but unused in the Sphinx sort of seals it for me. Not to mention the utter absence of ANYTHING earlier than the OK materials in the enclosure. This really is the crux: for archaeologists, the first time of occupation at a site is the one attested in the record -- and that can be altered in the face of new evidence from the site. For "alternative" thinkers, in contrast, the first time of occupation is whatever they can conceive in accordance with their premise. This is because they don't have evidence. For me, Claire, that's the end of the argument.
(4) Schoch's erosion thesis. As I understand it, the problem with Schoch's thesis is an insistence that (a) only rainfall could cause the erosion and (b) only rainfall before OK Egypt could have caused it. Both notions are hotly disputed by people far more knowledgeable in such matters than me. But if either one is wrong, the entire case collapses, since there is no other evidence for it -- are you starting to see my problem with the proposition? If Schoch were buttressing other solid indications of an earlier date (and the alleged Leo alignment is NOT one such) with his geological argument, that'd be another thing. Then his argument would be a supplement to a solid dating analysis. But he isn't. Rather, he's trying to supplant his geologic interpretation in the place of all the other evidence for the date of the Sphinx, not to mention its context. I just don't think his case is strong enough to justify that supplanting, or his conclusions.
(5) I see no way Occam's Razor can support Schoch's overall contention. His view requires a major unnecessary element: his pre-AE carving culture which is unattested anywhere at Giza, in Egypt, or anywhere on earth. That really ends it, in terms of Occam's Razor. In the face of such total absence of evidence, you might as well say "God did it."
You ask:
"So my question is; don’t we compare geological evidence against geological evidence – Schoch versus Gauri for example, for Occam’s Razor?"
Let's not forget that Schoch is trying to apply his geologic expertise to an archaeological issue. Technical debates among geologists lose me very quickly. To my mind, the real issue here is "does the Sphinx constitute evidence of an earlier, monument-building pre-AE culture along the Nile?" On the strength of the case he makes, I don't buy it. The problems are too manifold and far too much hangs on taking Schoch's word that his reconstruction of the erosion is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for it (which it isn't). His speculation of an earlier culture is just that -- speculation.
I add this, of course: if archaeological evidence for this culture DOES turn up, then I'll be delighted and intrigued. So I don't think people should stop looking. I just think, given the case on which the search is premised, they are chasing after ghosts.
Hope this is clearer.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
