| April 30, 2024, 4:29 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 16, 2001 01:05PM |
<HTML>Absolutely, Mike. All hypotheses (esp. dating one) are open to revision in the face of new methods or evidence. Thus what Schoch/West are doing is not in any way wrong ... makes for good discussion, anyway 
Rather, the historical implications being drawn from the proposed redating are remarkable and extraordinary ... and completely unattested at a well-studied site. What is more, many geologists disagree with the main platform of the redating effort -- PI erosion, and that only from rainfaill, and only from pre-dynastic rainfall. Many (like me) find the chain of "ifs" involved and the lack of corroborating evidence very unconvincing as a basis to redate the Sphinx.
Thus, <i>on current evidence</i> the redating is rejected. But if more evidence shows up, the question can be revisited. That's my position, anyway.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
Rather, the historical implications being drawn from the proposed redating are remarkable and extraordinary ... and completely unattested at a well-studied site. What is more, many geologists disagree with the main platform of the redating effort -- PI erosion, and that only from rainfaill, and only from pre-dynastic rainfall. Many (like me) find the chain of "ifs" involved and the lack of corroborating evidence very unconvincing as a basis to redate the Sphinx.
Thus, <i>on current evidence</i> the redating is rejected. But if more evidence shows up, the question can be revisited. That's my position, anyway.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.