<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
>
> I would wholeheartedly agree that the LACK of supporting
> evidence for Schoch's hypothesis from the field of Archeology
> is excellent reason for Archeologists to remain HIGHLY
> skeptical of his conclusions. HOWEVER....it is not sufficiant
> reason to *reject* those conclusions.
Well, I think most archaeologists, like myself, are skeptical to the point of being comfortable with the idea of Schoch being wrong (see my reply to Clair above). We could be wrong, of course, but that's a matter for archaeology to determine. It's really a matter of degree: am I "highly skeptical" of alien abduction stories, do I "reject" them? It's a matter of wording and degree. If Schoch/West produce evidence of their culture, archaeologists will quickly change their tune.
> Archeology cannot *disprove* Schoch's analysis by failing to
> locate supporting evidence for his conclusions - nor by
> making arguments from "context" and/or intrisic
> characteristics of the monumet itself. These findings (or
> lack thereof) may provide valid reasons for remaining
> skeptical of Shoch's conclusions, but they cannot overturn
> his work of themselves. For that, Geology itslef must be
> employed.
Archaeology cannot disprove the weathering hypothesis in and of itself -- this is obvious. However, it can (and does) point out how the archaeological *implications* of Schoch's conclusions about the date of the Sphinx are not borne out by the evidence and, in fact, run counter to that evidence. They are right to do so and it does have a bearint on this debate, as you concede.
> Schoch approached this question purely from a geological
> perspective. He looked at a rock and proposed a date for that
> rock. It just so happens that in this case, the date for that
> rock has enourmous Archeological *implications.* But one
> cannot say that the problem itself is inherently
> Archeological. From a Geological perspective, one rock is as
> *rocky* as an another.
This is not quite true. I think, if I recall correctly, that Schoch admits in his "Voices of the Rocks," that before studying the Sphinx, he had long been intrigued with cyclcic catastrophism and the possibility of lost human cultures and that he thought archaeologists were all too blinkered in their approach. Isn't that in there somewhere (or something like it)? If so, he hardly had an unbiased "purely geological" attitude.
> Now we both know that absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence - this cannot be used as an argument to oveturn
> Schoch's Geological conclusions.
It is a much abused dictum since, massive absence of evidence for massive claims IS evidence of absence. Second, it cannot overturn Schoch's claims, but it can throw light on the historical implications of them. It is part of the puzzle, and a significant one.
>
> This debate will stand or fall on the basis of the Geological
> arguments alone. If Schoch can demonstrate that his is the
> most rational explaination for the errosion of this
> particular Rock, and that this explaination can be used to
> establish a reliable date for this rock (two big *ifs* I will
> conceed), we will have no choice but to accept its
> implications.
>
> On the other hand, if an alternative analyis results in a
> more efficient Geological explaination for the errosion
> phenomena, or the rejection of the proposed age for the rock,
> then the currently accepted date for the Sphinx may remain
> unchallenged.
In fact, several such alternative scenarios have already been put forward. So, given the archaeological situation (which is part of the issue), that there are several explanations for the weathering that take severe issue with Schoch's methods and conclusions, isn't the balance in favor of the standard chronology, by your own criteria as outlined above?
>
> Either way, the ultimate resolution of the issue will be
> provided by Geology.
Of course the geology will play an important role, but it's the totality of the case that I think will make or break the debate. That totality includes archaeological considerations.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
