<HTML>Garrett
There is a similar parallel, as Alex has pointed out, in the Out of Africa versus multi-regionalist debate. There DNA evidence has been used to trump the fossil evidence. (although personally I find the DNA evidence to be controversial)
I notice that there are serious objections to the findings of Gauri and Harrell, but I can't find any information on whether Gauri and Harrell have answers to the comments. If the geological evidence mounts - more independent geologists enter the debate and also find evidence of precipitation based weathering as well as the other types of weathering that Schoch has identified, they may also conclude, as Schoch does, for a Sphinx carved pre-OK . If this happens then I guess the logical step would be to re-evalutate the archaeological context.
Bottom line we need more geological input into the debate. How solid are Schoch's claims?
Meanwhile I noted that Schoch reported the findings of various prehistorians in Voices, notably Mary Settegast, rather than offering his own interpretation for prehistory. Richard Rudgley also argues for a re-examination of the capabilities of the neolithic people in his work, Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age.
Claire</HTML>
