<HTML>Hi Garrett:
You forgot to include this:
"The first study was undertaken by the geologist David Coxill ("The Riddle of the Sphinx" published in the Spring 1998 issue [Issue 2, pp. 13-19] of the journal INSCRIPTION: JOURNAL OF ANCIENT EGYPT). After confirming my observations on the weathering and erosion of the Sphinx, and pointing out that other explanations do not work, Coxill clearly states (page 17): "This [the data and analysis he covers in the preceding portions of his paper] implies that the Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times." Coxill then discusses very briefly the seismic work that Thomas Dobecki and I pursued and my estimate of an initial date of 5,000 to 7,000 B.C. for the earliest parts of the Sphinx based on the seismic data. He neither supports nor refutes this portion of my work, but simply writes (page 17): "Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible -- until more conclusive evidence comes to light." I can understand that he could take this stance, although perhaps I feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the seismic analysis we did. Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper (page 17), continues: "Nevertheless, it [the Sphinx] is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx -- in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 BC."
Cheers
Don Barone</HTML>
