<HTML>Garrett wrote:
>
> The same mantra banded about my Ishmael in a thread
> below: "It's geology and not history."
>
> Not so.
>
> The supposedly geological argument about the weathering on
> the Sphinx is deployed in the service of an <i>historical</i>
> premise (the existence of a pre-AE, sphinx-carving culture).
But it is independent of said premise.
Either the sphinx has been water-eroded in the way Schoch suggests or it has not.
If it is shown that it has, then it was carved at a time when such water was widespread in Egypt.
> That is why it has been adopted by the likes of Hancock. It
> is an historical issue, at heart. Also, if it's not an
> historical issue, what is Schoch doing making claims about
> cyclic catastrophism in <i>human history</i>, as he does with
> this chronology?
>
>
> Garrett
With all due respect Garrett, egyptologists just cannot stick their head in the sand (as some have done) and say "This cannot be the case, we do not know of any archaeological basis for an older sphinx" and dismiss it on that.
IMHO, Solid geologic evidence of an older sphinx will trump any archaeological objections, whatever they are.
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>