<HTML>Michael,
No question in science is ever closed. All hypotheses, and even theories, are at risk of being overturned by contrary data. Science lives in a world of probabilities (a giant Guassian curve, if you will).
What Garrett is getting at is that there is NO archaeological evidence to suggest construction of monuments at Giza before the IV Dynasty. Therefore, the "orthodox" dating hypothesis stands not as proven, but more accurately, as not disproven by contrary archaeological data. (Is that a decent paraphrase, Garrett?). This hypothesis rests on:
1. The numbers of IV Dynasty pottery sherds found in and around the enclosure.
2. The lack of pre-dynastic pottery sherds found in and around the enclosure.
3. The law of superposition, where construction blocks associated with the Sphinx (via its temple) were found ABOVE IV Dynasty sherds.
4. Association of the Sphinx with Khafre's pyramid via the causeway (an element all three principal pyramids at Giza share - causeways to associated temples/tombs).
5. Consistency of the artistic motif executed on the Sphinx with other IV dynasty objects.
6. The monumental nature of the Sphinx, consistent with the Dynastic period.
(If I missed any, fill me in.)
Schoch's weathering hypothesis rests on:
1. The Sphinx and its enclosure are badly weathered.
2. The weathering looks like precipitation weathering to him.
3. There hasn't been much precipitation at Giza over the last 4500 years.
4. There was more precipitation 5000 to 7000 years ago.
Colin's hypothesis (Khufu Knew the Sphinx) rests on:
1. The west wall, the west end of the south wall, and part of the north "wall" of the Sphinx enclosure are badly weathered.
2. The weathering looks like sheet wash erosion to him.
3. When Khufu excavated his quarry, sheetwash could no longer reach the enclosure.
4. There is some evidence that monumental architecture was built during the pre-dynastic (but not at Giza).
The major flaw in both of the principally geological arguments is that they don't have any hard data beyond that provided by studies on climate. I accept that Giza received more rainfall during the mid-Holocene. But the rest of these arguments are purely subjective. It "looks like" doesn't cut it in science. How does Schoch know this is what precipitation (to the exclusion of all other weathering processes) does to the Mokattam limestones? How does Colin know this is what sheet wash does to the Mokattam limestones? Where are their numbers that have the equivalent weight to the numbers of pottery sherds found? Where is the equivalent to the law of superposition? Unfortunately for them, there is no "universal rate of weathering" formula by which to calculate how fast any rock weathers (way too many variables). Most importantly, Gauri et al. have established beyond any reasonable doubt that SCrySIE does occur in the Mokattam limestones - this automatically advances the rate of weathering clock to the point that Schoch's date is untenable. Colin's date is not made untenable by ScrySIE, but it is dismantled by his overly simplistic modelling of sheetwash behavior and by the fact it does not explain the degree of weathering on the Sphinx itself, while SCrySIE does.
No, the case isn't closed, but the geologists haven't made a serious dent in the working hypothesis either. It still stands as not disproven.</HTML>
