<HTML>Claire -
I see. Your approach is reasonable. However, I have laid out my position clearly already. But for the sake of clarity, I'll summarize it here.
(a) Archaeology deduces the Sphinx as an OK monument, using its standard methods (one of which, context, is critical to all archaeological interpretations and has been hugely successful in understanding hundreds of human cultures and millions of human artifacts).
(b) Archaeology has found no evidence of a sophisticated, monument building culture at Giza and, in fact, has investigated pre-OK Egypt pretty extensively (despite Schoch's imagined objections to this proces). I direct you to the German excavations at Abydos in particular. Nothing to suggest Neolithic Sphinx builders.
(c) Robert Schoch (NOT "geology" in general) is convinced that the Sphinx weathering is from water ONLY, from rainfall ONLY, and from rainfall ONLY before the OK. On this basis ALONE he redates the Sphinx to thousands of years earlier, into a non-monument-building context (here is the "clash of disciplines" aspect of it).
(d) Many geologists, and several who have worked at Giza in particular, disagree not only with Schoch's conclusions but with this methods and with his reasoning. If any of them are right, Schoch's re-dating collapses. If any of the links in his chain of reasoning breaks (if the weathering is NOT from water, if it is NOT from rainfall, or if it is NOT from rainfall before the OK), his contention collapses. And many think all the links are broken.
(e) As a discipline, geology is not suited to dating archaeological monuments on its own, and erosion patterns in particular are not suited as archaeological dating tools, given the variables involved in the creation of such patterns. Since water erosion is the ONLY cogent part of Schoch's argument (the rest is all window-dressing, such as the supposed lion's head or the Leo alignment), he is on a sticky wicket from the very outset. He's using a sword for needlework.
(f) Occam's Razor militates against Schoch, which requires speculating about a culture which is not known to exist and for which no evidence at all exists. A parallel to this scenario is like saying "God did it."
Given all of these points, Schoch's contention is most likely to be wrong. That is my view, anyway.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
