<HTML>What a fascinating post! I read your paper on the Early Dynastic Sphinx (found it at the Ian Lawton site) and thought it raised fascinating possibilities.
I am still worried by the "later guys cleared the enclosure, hence the lack of pre-4th dyn. material there" line, though. If later guys cleared it, why is the 4th dyn. stuff still there? Why should they clear out the pre-4th stuff, but leave the 4th stuff and subsequent materials there?
There's also all the architectural-unity arguments to deal with.
Your approach, though, integrating the geological arguments with appreciation of the archaeological context to reach a conclusion, is so much better than Schoch's as to be unimaginable.
Best,
Garrett
PS: To a Romanist like me, the possibility of a slightly earlier sphinx is not as concerning as all the LC fantasies, and the "turning our view of ourselves on its head" egocentrism.</HTML>
